chris. >> thank you very much. merry christmas everybody. happy holy days. may with all be touched by the reason for this season. i am chris cuomo, welcome to "prime time." the president was talking about being better one moment, then at his worst the next, pounding pelosi about impeachment. we know that game, he's all about heat. the question is where is the light at the end of the tunnel for the democrats? we're going to ask a senior member of the saw cuss tonight. and presidential candidate tom steyer is here to debate if the money that he and bloomberg are shelling out is proof of a solution or a problem in our politics. what do you say? let's get after it. all right, look. here's a little piece of what the president told us. together we must strive to foster a culture of deeper understanding and respect,

traits that exemplify the teachings of christ. i suspect those words were written by somebody else and put into the mouth of this president as a christmas message. why? because then we got reality just a couple of hours later. why should crazy nancy pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the house, be allowed to impeach the president? we get the president's play, okay? the question is what will the democrats do after the break? where does this leave them and lead them? let's ask a senior member of the house foreign affairs committee, congressman gregory meeks of new york. blessed for christmas, i hope, for you and your family. >> absolutely. >> thank you for helping us out on this show as often as you do. >> good to be with you, chris. >> thank you, sir. so, the president's message -- let's put him aside. in the new year, do you believe there is any chance of democrats and republicans working together on things that matter for the american people? i'm talking laws, not bills in

the house. >> you saw at the end of the year we worked on certain things together. that's how we passed usmca. that was a tremendously big and important bill. there were other bills that we were able to pass working closely together. i know coming out of, for example, the committee, one of the committees i sit on, the financial services committee, we've got bipartisan bills, hugely important, dealing with, for example, xm bank, which is important to the country. we passed that in a bipartisan way. that's going to go to the president's desk for him to sign. so, there's a lot of bills that we have been working on that we're doing our work. we have been all along. some mcconnell deals with and some he does not. >> you think that changes? >> i think so. i think "people" want to get things done. it's an election year, and you're going to ultimately be judged by what you've done and what you've not done. i think we're pushing forward to

get certain things done. >> so the let at the end of the tunnel, when you come back to session, i know the counterfactual. i know that in '98 there was a big gap between when the president was impeached and when the managers were picked. i think it was december 16th and then not until january something were they picked, i know. this is different because it seems like a political play. when you are back, do you think this process should move to the senate and do so quickly? >> first of all, what i disagree with, it's not a political play. what people are calling politics and partisan, et cetera, sometimes is a question of what is facts and what are not. what is the truth and what is false? >> so what is it? >> what we're going after is the truth. the truth is thus far, we've had witnesses that come in to testify, not democrats, not republicans, but individuals who were with the state department or intelligence agency, et cetera, to testify based on what they see as a wrong doing by this president.

>> right. >> so, therefore we come with two articles of impeachment. >> right. >> and the only person that is obstructing is the president of the united states. why do i say that? he blocks witnesses. he says he wants witnesses to testify, but he blocks them all. he withholds documents, even documents that some of the witnesses wanted so they could testify. so, the one that's blocking and preventing us from the truth, they say and he has said that, you know, we need to have someone that was in the room. well, we want bolton. we want mulvaney to come in and testify. >> who else do you think you'll get? the idea of the double edge sword here i think is a good analogy. let's say you do get witnesses in the senate. i think it's less than 50/50 right now, but what do i know? if you get those two, you're going to give congressman. you're going to have biden witnesses in there. you're going to have the republicans go after threads that they see as relevant if for

no other reason than the president wants them to. is it worth it? >> here's what we know. biden has been investigated and the facts are there's nothing there. there's been an investigation. the facts show despite the lies -- and you know, you can go to the credibility of witnesses and not just by democrats. >> there are enough people especially in that party, especially in office in that party, who believe there's more there to look at. >> what i say is again is a question of facts and lies. one of the things we do know, the credibility of this president is not there. you know, "washington post" talks about over-10,000 lies since he's been president. and even republicans, when they were honest with this, look at statements that walk around in my pocket that lindsey graham

and ted cruz and marco rubio, all said, they said he's the worst thing that could happen to our party. lindsey graham said donald trump could go to hell. they knew when they were running what his character was. >> but they lost. >> his character is the same. >> i know. that is clear to anybody with eyes. what i'm saying is they made a choice. me won, i lost. now we're going to go. similarly, this process is going to ind. it's going to go to the senate. they're going to have a trial. in all likelihood -- i don't believe this noise about murkowski. i don't believe there's any insurrection within the right. i see no proof of it anyway. the president gets acquitted. what does that mean for the democrats? >> it means the camera of history has rolled, number one. we did our job. we did what our constitutional responsibility required us to do. and for me, and one of the reasons why i'm happy that you have me on this show, i want to make sure i am on the right side of history, that i kept my oath of office. i'm not doing what mcconnell is

doing, where he's not keeping his oath. he's already said he's going to be in cahoots with the president's people. >> he made a mistake saying he's not impartial when he takes an oath. that's on him. but for you guys, when he's acquitted, what do the democrats say? why was this worth it for the country? >> because we did our job. because in fact the president did obstruct, as a talked about before. there's no -- and he had the opportunity to present witnesses that would have, that could exonerate him. he chose not to. there's a reason. >> will this affect the campaign? >> no. >> how do you know so quickly? >> because if you look at right now, and i don't go by polling, but i think that what individuals look at and most americans, they want the truth. they want the truth. and the truth shall prevail. and the truth is clear in this matter, as well as looking at his credibility, as i just

indicated, and the facts of who testified and what and how this took place. and looking at the process. you know -- >> what if you lose democrats in the senate? not in the election. i'm saying what is a doug jones is contagious and there's three or four of them who say, you know what, case isn't clear enough, i'm going to acquit. >> i think what you're going to have is, again, the opposite. because you saw already the senator from alaska, and i think you're going to see some others who are looking at the camera of history also. and they're concerned -- i think it's the republicans that you may look at that way want to reconsider on what's taking place with this process. >> i just don't see the proof because murkowski said what's obvious right now which is i don't like that mcconnell said he's not impartial. that's easy. that's low fruit. i think you've only heard it from one republican tells you how tight lipped they are on

this. if they vote, i think the best point of your argument will be seen if there is a motion to dismiss or there is a motion on rules that gets dicey in terms of republican senators wanting a semblance of fairness. so the three most weighty words in our business, we will see and soon enough. but what we know right now is, congressman, i appreciate you being on and making the case. >> thank you, good to be with you. >> not everybody wants to be tested and you do. blessed for the new year. now, look, i say it's obvious because i think for all of us it is right now. the poison in the president's brand of politics is easy to point out, but it has been working like medicine in his party. they are behind this president the way i have never seen any party be behind their president, ever. why? well, let's look at the talk about alaska republican senator murkowski, saying she's not a rubber stamp. what does that mean? does it mean anything? we'll bring in two republicans with very different mindsets and debate where this party is and

why. dent and duffey, next. steyer: i'm about to say two words

that will make washington insiders very uncomfortable: term limits. you and i both know we need term limits, that congress shouldn't be a lifetime appointment. but members of congress, and the corporations who've bought our democracy hate term limits. too bad. i'm tom steyer and i approve this message because the only way we get universal healthcare, address climate change and make our economy more fair is to change business as usual in washington. the wait is over. t-mobile is lighting up 5g nationwide. while some 5g signals go only blocks, t-mobile 5g goes miles... beyond the big cities to the small towns... to the people. now, millions of americans can have access to 5g on t-mobile. and this is just the beginning. t-mobile, the first and only nationwide 5g network.

it's easy to move forward when you're ready for what comes next. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. and on the way, you'll get timely investment help to keep you on the right track, without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. because when you have a partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has made no secret of his own bias in an impeachment trial, and that was a mistake. i can't wait to watch him take the oath. now on the opposite end of the spectrum, we have a lone republican senator, and i emphasize "lone" for a reason. moderate lisa murkowski of alaska. here's what she said. >> in fairness, when i heard that, i was disturbed. to me, it means that we have to take that step back from being hand in glove with the defense. any way we move forward, i think it's going to be important that at a minimum, the process that the senate uses is one that is fair and full. >> now, this is getting a ton of pickup and heat.

but is it proof of any real daylight between this president and his party? great debate to be had. two former republican congress men, charlie dent and sean duffey. first, merry christmas to you and your families, thank you for being on the show. i appreciate it. >> merry christmas. >> charlie, push back on the idea that it means nothing, of course he made a mistake to say he wasn't impartial. it's easy to say this process should be fair, but your party is locked in. where is there any proof that that's false? >> i think we should take lisa murkowski at her word. i think she's sending a signal to mitch mcconnell that she wants there to be a negotiated agreement between mcconnell and schumer to come up with some kind of a consensus on witnesses, for example. and hey, lisa murkowski is not a

shrinking violet. she's beaten back right wing challenges before. when she was primaried, she turned around and beat the guy as an independent. so she knows how to fight. and i think that she can move some other members. so, she clearly wants a fair trial. we'll see whether there's daylight at the end of the day between her and the president, but i think she sent out a warning shot. >> it's not about murkowski for me, it's about the duffey's for me. there are so many more of people with your mindset which is we have to protect this president, what's being done to him is unfair, and that's the chapter of history we're going to write. you don't think you'll see that in the senate, duffey? >> i agree, chris, if the house did hearings in secret, donald trump wasn't present, wasn't able to cross examine witnesses, it was a political show and political sham. now to come to the senate and

say we want something other than politics i think is rich. i would agree that if the house had been fair in the way they had done this and not been political, i would join you and charlie and say the senate should do the same thing. that's the danger when you just play politics, it trickles down. now the senate is going to play politics. i think lisa murkowski, she is an upstanding lady. do i think she gets any traction? probably not. she was back home in alaska when she made those comments. who know what is her perspective is going to be when she gets back to d.c. with her fellow republican colleagues. >> i've had this debate with sean before, he's arguing two wrongs don't make a right. the house process was exactly what we've seen in the past. except the house wound up doing the investigating this time. it wasn't something really secretive like ken starr who spent four years looking at this kind of stuff. the point remains the same, charlie, is that they can say they want it to be fair. but the politics of what sean is laying out, is that too strong

to have the senate be anything other than the correction of the house, for your party? >> well, i think to be fair, the house did rush their process more than they should have. they should have insisted on witnesses and subpoenaed people and tried to enforce those subpoenas. that said, a lot of these senators have been running their mouths and they should at least put up the pretence they're going to be impartial even though many of them have already made their minds up. but i think many of them are quite clear where they're going to come down on this whole situation. i think people expect the senate at times to be, you know, a calmer, more deliberative body than the house. sean and i have served in the house, we know what it's like, it can be raucous. the senate is there to calm things down. i think many americans are expecting the senate to act like adults and try to run what appears to be a fair trial even if people have already made their minds up. >> sean, what is the fear?

i don't say this cynically, fear is powerful in politics. my suggestion is that this president scares people in your party not like i'm going to hurt you, nothing thuggish. but i will come to where you are, run someone against you, toe for toe, and you will lose like sanford did. is that the pull for people? >> no. i think you're absolutely wrong, chris. people don't gravitate towards donald trump because they fear him. they gravitate towards him because they love him. they love the policies that he's fighting for. we're a party of lifers. we believe in life, not late term partial birth abortions. we believe in secure borders. we believe in fair trade. we believe in limited government. donald trump has fought for all those things. and that's why people love him. no one's afraid of him. people who disagree with him, and charlie was one when he was in congress would say he disagrees. murkowski can say she disagrees. people love him and they love the results of his policy.

i don't think it's fear at all, chris. it's love and affection for a president who has stood up and fought for the principles that people believe. we've had leaders and presidents who have said i agree in all these things you republicans believe in, they run on it, and then they don't do it when they get into office. donald trump has kept his promises. >> kept his promise to pass a tax cut he wouldn't pay for and a trade war that makes a mockery of what republicans have believed in for 50 years. charlie, do you buy the love thing? >> donald trump -- no, i don't. is there a core element of the party completely enthralled with donald trump? yes. if i had a nickel for every republican voter who told me they have misgivings or reservations about donald trump but willing to take a risk on him, they knew he was a potential problem. there are a lot of republicans out there who support this man very reluctantly and would prefer to have somebody else. and by the way, sean, where i disagree with you, i don't think donald trump is very principled

at all. i think he's completely transactional with the exception of two issues, trade where he's a protectionist and immigration where he is a restrictionist. everything else, he's transactional. it's obvious to all of us. this trade policy violates every core tenet of what we stood for as republicans. i thought that was a core principle, not this crony capitalism that protects the few at the expense of the many. >> i think trade is an area where he has advanced of thinking of republicans. we were a party of free trade at all costs. >> and so what president trump has said is, basically, i'm going to make sure we don't just have free trade, we're going to have fair trade. if we don't get treated fairly we will respond with tariffs. that's what he's done on china. >> tariffs on canada and mexico and brazil? >> and charlie, i think you're living in a bubble. there is a small sliver of anti-trump republicans but

donald trump has a 90% approval rating. and i hate to quote this, i'm going to get lit up on this, chris, but some will say donald trump is a greater president than abraham lincoln. that's how much they love him. i know i'm going to get crushed on that. >> i will say this, the reckoning is not going to be about policy. it's that every republican i have on here to defend this president, literally every one, will say, no, i wouldn't have said what he said, no, i wouldn't do it that way. and i don't get how the party of character counts makes that compromise. but that's for the voters to decide. sean duffy, charlie dent, god bless your families and happy new year. >> merry christmas. >> merry christmas. that vote is coming, we're 39 days out from the first 2020 votes. obviously they're going to matter so much more on the democrat side than republican. we need to look at what matters now and for which candidate, because we now see the state of

play taking shape. the wizard of odds slicing up the numbers in a new way, next. with advil, you have power over pain, so the whole world looks different. the unbeatable strength of advil. what pain? you ever wish you weren't a motaur? sure. sometimes i wish i had legs like you. yeah, like a regular person. no. still half bike/half man, just the opposite. oh, so the legs on the bottom and motorcycle on the top?

yeah. yeah, i could see that. for those who were born to ride, there's progressive. yeah, i could see that. a president who abuses power. and obstructs justice. the impeachment of donald j. trump. he was supposed to protect our constitution. not trample on it by asking foreign countries to undermine our democracy for his personal political gain. trump broke his oath to america. members of the house and senate must now do their constitutional duty. if you agree, sign our petition at need to impeach.com need to impeach is responsible for the content of this advertising. but in my mind i'm still 25. that's why i take osteo bi-flex, to keep me moving the way i was made to. it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term. osteo bi-flex - now in triple strength plus magnesium. we chose eleanor. it was great-grandma's name.

so we're in this little town near salerno and everyone has dad's eyebrows. help your family discover their unique story, with a gift from ancestry.

i've argued to you many times on this show that this election doesn't start until the votes start coming in. that's not just a silly obvious point. that's when the media starts picking winners and losers and and why and metrics and those sorts of things. there's a new analysis. there are a few wild cars at play like we haven't seen before in this race. we brought in the wizard of

odds, harry enten, to show us what he thinks matters. good to see you. >> shalom. i want to start off with a simple concept. take a look at the 2016 versus 2020 choice for president. in 2016 we had a record gender gap, record, 25 percentage point difference between how women voted, 14 point margin for hillary clinton, and how men voted, 11 point margin for donald trump. take a look at 2020. this is an average of our october and our december polls. what do we see? we see the gender gap becoming even larger, a 34 point gender gap. men are voting about the same, 10 points for donald trump. but women are going increasingly democratic, going for joe biden in the polling by a 24 point margin, a 10 point increase from what they were doing in 2016. >> so what? >> so what? there are a couple of so whats on this. one big so what is let's talk about the midwest, where donald

trump won all those votes, he did particularly well among white voters without a college degree in 2016, women and men. we saw a 27-point gender gap in that year. women voted for donald trump overwhelmingly by 23 percentage points, white women without a college degree. take a look at 2020, because i think this is so key. in an average of our last two polls, women are going for donald trump by just 4 percentage points, just 4. that creates a gender gap of 39 points. so trump is losing among women who he won overwhelmingly back in 2016. he's losing ground among them and he's basically even now. >> so the weighed and measured and found lacking analysis is informed by women especially if they don't have a college degree. then you offset that with him being at 90% in the party, harry. where is the space between those two figures? >> i think the space between the two of those is although the swing part of the electorate is becoming smaller and smaller, it is the pivotal part of the electorate. even if you're seeing small changes among small groups of people, remember donald trump won the state of wisconsin by just one percentage point, just

one. so, if we're seeing movement like this among white women without a college degree who make up 28% of the voters in the midwest battlegrounds like wisconsin, like michigan -- >> it matters, i get it. so now you have to look at it on the democrats' side. how much do people who say they want a particular candidate mean it? you call that durability. >> yes. >> what do you see? >> just to sort of set the stagework here, look at this. this is my average of polls in december of 2019 versus december of 2018. look at biden. so similar here, 28% now versus 27% back in december of 2018. bernie sanders, the same thing. 18% now versus 17% back in december of 2018. and why is that? why is that? i think one key thing, you're talking about this durability. take a look at our last poll here. look at this. we said okay who's your choice for the nomination and is your mind made up or may you change your mind? among those whose minds are made up, look who's at the top, joe biden with 37%, bernie sanders with 26%, versus elizabeth warren just at 11%.

a lot of her voters say they may change her mind. the same with pete buttigieg, just 7% among those who say their mind is made up, just 7% are supporting pete buttigieg. >> so, quick, this idea that sanders is having a resurgence, his numbers have been solid. warren took a bite out of his ass for a while. >> tushie. >> his tuchus. but he's been bringing them back. but now the new narrative is, hey, you know, it could be him because -- >> the fact is it could be him. i will say this. you know, bernie sanders does better among whites without a college degree and non-whites who tend to be unrepresented in media coverage. the same for joe biden. but the fact is, look, he's still in the national polls at only 18%. that is not enough to win a nomination. he has perhaps a very high floor, but his ceiling, he hasn't shown he's able to get above that. we'll have to wait and see. 18% not enough to win a nomination but certainly big enough to be able to continue on. >> sanders is going nowhere, the

only question is how far does he go. >> i think that's the big question. >> i gotcha. harry, thanks very much, not easy to explain, you did it very well, even though i got most of it. somebody up in that enten echelon of understanding things is someone i call the politics professor. ron brownstein, brilliant journalist, understands the meaning of the numbers. good to see you as always, the best to your family for the holidays. >> happy holidays, yes. >> does all that have make sense you about what we're seeing in terms of these very small margins in the places that matter and this gender gap being real? >> right, look, i agree with harry completely on one key point. the biggest reason donald trump is president, i think, is because so many blue collar white women in the midwest, in the key states of wisconsin, michigan, and pennsylvania, picked him over the first female nominee. his margins in all the data sources that we have nationally among those noncollege white women was 20 points or more. and he has seen a significant erosion. i mean we saw -- >> why?

>> you saw in that poll -- i think it began, part of it, the obvious part is his style and manner, confrontational. >> he was like that before. >> he was like that before. therefore i think the biggest difference, where this really began, chris, is when he tried to repeal the aca. the appeal of the affordable care act cut into the core promise to those women, that he would provide them more economic security. that's why i think that obviously we're all focused on impeachment but in terms of whether democrats win the house in 2020, hold the house in 2020, and even to some extent their battle for these blue collar white women in the presidential year, a more significant vote this month was the house vote to try to reduce prescription drug prices by allowing medicare to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies. that is the key wedge, i think, for democrats with these blue collar white women. if you look at wisconsin which is probably the state right at the tipping point of the 2020 election, the folks at the university of marquette law school poll ran for me today their year-long average. trump is now underwater among those blue color white women and

trailing joe biden among them. that's very hard for him, even though he's still very strong among the men as you is a you in the chart that harry put up, he suffered big erosion also among college white women. in 2018, democrats had their biggest margin ever among those white collar white women and we're probably going to see that again in 2020. >> the professor has argued to me numerous times that i am wrong to suggest that the way this president is doesn't matter. i look at the durability within his party at 90%, and this legion of apologyists who come on this show, no matter what he says or does. your argument is, cuomo, you're talking about the political class and how that plays not necessarily with voters. where is the space? >> the space, you can measure the cost of the way trump behaves very precisely in the attitude of voters who are satisfied with the economy. if you look at the cnn poll, we're up to three-quarters of the country describing the economy as excellent or good yet trump's approval rating is

somewhere between 40 and 45%. if you go back to the exit polls in the 2004 election with george w. bush and 2012 with barack obama, about 90% of the people who describe the economy as excellent or good in each case voted for the incumbent president. in our new cnn poll, what trump is polling against biden among those who say the economy is excellent or good? 55%. it's 55 to 40 as compared to 90. that gap between that and 90% is the cost of his behavior. he's driving away too many voters who are satisfied with the economy. that puts him on a treadmill, in a way, chris, because in response to that he has to go even more polarizing to turn out more of his voters who aren't really voting on the economy but how he talks about culture and race. >> what happens if they do something like drug prices and the president then takes credit for it? so the democrats say, this was our idea, he says, yeah, but i got it done. is that a fix for the president with these same voters, largely female in orientation, mostly noncollege?

>> potentially, because if you look, these are not democrats, okay? these voters are not -- have not voted democratic in a long time, they don't lean toward the democratic party. they don't like medicare for all, they don't like decriminalizing the border, they don't like letting the undocumented into the health care system. there's polling on all of that. but they don't like the way donald trump behaves and they don't like him trying to repeal the aca, in particular the provisions guaranteeing protections for people with pre-existing conditions. so, democrats do not have infinite license with these voters. >> that's the smart part of what "the new york times" reported, saying there's some republicans who have taken a look at biden. i find that so hard to believe. but you see a potential opportunity there. >> it's the kind of penumbra of the republican coalition. obviously there are college educated white men, noncollege white women and college white women who previously voted republican who have moved towards the democrats in 2018. democrats wouldn't have won if

they hadn't had some movement among people who still lean republican on some policy issues but are simply not comfortable with the volatility and the belligerence and the polarizing nature of the trump presidency. that's the basic argument of the democratic party, should the core goal in 2020 be do you pull over the pieces that have broken off the republican coalition that is more of a biden/klobuchar kind of play, or is it to find a nominee who can really gin up the turnout among young people and minorities who are even more alienated from trump. >> the professor, ron brownstein, thank you so much. best to you for the new year. i look forward to sharing a lottery with you. one of the names in play here, especially if you watched the last debate for the democrats, tom steyer. whenever his name comes up, you always wind up talking about money within about two or three sentences, fair or unfair. he's been pumping in a ton, as has bloomberg. is it making a difference?

is it worth it? and two, is it good for the process? let's get after that next.

♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia. for everyone you love. little things can be a big deal. psoriasis, that's why there's otezla.

otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with... ...an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. we need a solution.ut their phones down. introducing... smartdogs. the first dogs trained to train humans. stopping drivers from: liking. selfie-ing. and whatever this is. available to the public... never. smartdogs are not the answer.

but geico has a simple tip. turn on "do not disturb while driving" mode. brought to you by geico.

used to be, the republicans were where the big bank account battles happen. but no more. there are two billionaires vying for the democratic nomination. money can be magic in politics, especially one that is so dependent on ads. michael bloomberg, tom steyer, they spent a combined total of more than $211 million on tv

spots so far. two questions. is it working for them? more importantly, is it working for the rest of us? democratic presidential candidate tom steyer joins me now. always a pleasure. best to your family for the new year. >> chris, nice to talk to you. >> the money. and using it the way you do. why is it okay? >> chris, there is no question that the only real thing that will work in a democratic primary is having a differential important message that people respond to and being somebody who democratic primary voters trust. i mean, not talking about myself but talking about mayor bloomberg, if he would embrace a wealth tax, which i've said if somebody like him or like me who is very rich is going to run and represent democrats, they have to understand the inequality in income and money in this society and embrace a wealth tax to represent the people, to show

how unjust the current situation is. if he would do that, then it's just a question of what is his message and do people believe it. >> i get it. i get that message matters. so does money. and the argument is you, arguably even bloomberg, we've had invitations to him to be on the show, he hasn't wanted to come on and make his case yet, we'll see if he does. but for the money, you guys aren't in this race. and is that okay that the process even allows it? >> let me put it this way, chris. i'm not a famous person. and in order to get my message out, i have to do what i've done for ten years when i've been trying to correct problems in our society from the outside, which is i have to put in all my time and all my effort and blood, sweat, and tears, and the money to get that message out. so if you don't -- if i weren't allowed to do that, you would be basically saying only famous people get to do this or only senators. >> i hear you about that.

it's not like -- you're making a hoye pa loi argument versus the hoity-toity. >> i'm not saying that. there's an insider versus outsider question here. for ten year, i've been doing this from the outside, taking on corporations and beating them. but in fact, as an outsider this is the only way to get my message out. it's what i've been doing for ten years, is really, when i see something wrong, and i see something really wrong here, i see a broken government and no one calling it out, no one calling for term limits, i'm the person here, only person who will say climate is my number one priority, i looked at this and thought, my goodness, nobody is he leveling with the american people, somebody's got to do it and i went out to do it. that's exactly what i've been doing. >> it is a fair point to make that you are not a johnny come lately to politics. you've put a lot of money where your mouth is over the years in a lot of different ways, including politics.

>> i've also put in all my time. >> i'm not saying you haven't. >> i've put in all my time and effort. >> that's all fair. >> it's a full-time job. >> you put your time, you put your sweat, you put your money, i allow you to check all those boxes because that's what the record shows. what i'm saying is the argument is that money poisons politics. not at the grassroots level, not in helping organizations that do things that you believe matter in your own opinion, but the idea that our political campaigns are this dependent on money, is part of the problem of this process. do you see that? >> chris, i take your point, but my point is this. if you don't have a message, if i don't have a message that the people in iowa believe, if i don't have a message that the people in new hampshire and nevada and south carolina believe, and they don't trust me, like me, that's all that matters.

> . >> it's not like you're lighting it up in the polls. we had you at 3% in a couple of the polls, you're usually around a single digit. what does it tell you about the money? >> it tells me you're looking at the wrong polls, chris. i think you're looking at a national poll. i think what this actually is is a series of state elections. it's a series of state elections all of which impact each other. i think that national polls to me aren't that relevant. what's relevant is a series of elections, caucus in iowa, primary in new hampshire, caucus in nevada, primary in south carolina. so actually, that's what i think counts. and that's why i've been spending my time, that's where people have gotten, some of them, a chance to hear what i have to say. i believe those people really understand what i'm saying and like it. so i actually think you are looking at the wrong numbers, my friend. >> we'll see soon enough. by the way, there's some truth to what you're saying. this race changes once the votes start. i know that sounds completely absurd, it's obvious, yes, of

course it changes. i'm saying the media narratives change. they start talking about a different universe of people and start talking about them in different ways. you're right, the three weighty words are "we will see." let me ask you something. do you really believe your party is going to win this election? >> chris, i think everybody is getting a gut check on that right now. i think that's a fair question. look, we can see what mr. trump is doing, and we can see what he's going to do. it's what you were talking about before. he's going to run on the economy. >> yeah, why wouldn't he? >> honestly, that's all he's got. >> but that's the biggest thing to have in politics. >> i agree, chris. and my point is this. conventional democratic wisdom won't work against mr. trump. >> how do you beat him anyway? he says just look at the numbers. the are you doing better than four years ago metric. >> chris, i apologize for saying this, i just said you're looking at the wrong numbers. he's looking at the wrong numbers too. >> such as?

>> because the real question here is he keeps looking at gdp, unemployment, and the stock market, right? >> yes. >> the real question is how are the american people doing. not the average, because the average is so weighted by rich people. the question is how are 90% of working americans doing. unemployment. unemployment is very low. unfortunately you can't live on the jobs that you have. >> right. >> you really can't. people are getting absolutely crushed. >> they'll say wages are better than they were four years ago, that there has been a rising tide, maybe not what we want but better than nothing. >> you know, this is a guy who has sold a bill of goods to the american people and my point is, you need somebody like me who spent 30 years building a business, who can take him on on the economy. this guy is one of the all-time great salesmen but he did exactly the same thing, chris, you're from new york, you probably went down to atlantic city to his casinos. >> no. i only went there once and it was to jump off one of them.

>> in all fairness, he's doing to the united states what he did to atlantic city casinos, which is overpromise, overborrow, and go bankrupt. the guy is a fake. he's always been a fake and you need somebody who has a lot of private sector experience like me who has the experience and the expertise to show that he's a fraud. always has been. >> i hear you. i welcome you to make the argument here. we'll continue to make the case to the american people. saying that trump is a fraud is easy. getting people to believe it is the trick in an election. we'll see how it goes. thank you so much, tom steyer, best to you and the family for the new year. you thought i was joking, i wasn't. google it and you'll see that i actually did go down there to jump off of one of his casinos, and mr. trump at the time, not the president, said if you do it without the cable you have on i'll double the donation to charity. if you do it without the cable.

he was kidding, i think. what a year. so much heat in our politics led by a president who calls any who say or do anything that he doesn't like a fake, a fraud, and bad. nothing but problems for the country. that's how he describes any criticism. he is wrong, i can prove it. that's the argument, next.

talk about the bad. and we're there making things worse. that's the president's main argument against criticism. it's all fake, malicious, that makes it part of the problem. to borrow from him -- wrong. we all know the media is not supposed to pump up the powerful. the president already has that %-p capitulate to power. you should want that in your media. these people may have power and money but they work for you and your communities, and so do we. we report to you and for you. you are activated, engaged now

in a way that i have never seen. as a result, you're seeing the media and this maelstrom for what it is. the biggest proof that criticism and analysis isn't the problem isn't how you feel about the media. 41% of americans trust newspapers, tv, and radio to report the news fully and fairly now, all right? it's actually, you know, better than it was in 2016, all right? but the division is real. people are angry at us and at everybody else. when it comes to the government, what you ignore, you empower. and what you expose, you can change. trump's presidential run reveals certain frustrations and realities in this country. but he's a one-trick pony. he's juicing anger. but america is much bigger than trump. millions voted for him. millions more voted against against him. this is where he's stuck, because fake news, lies, fires up some people but makes a lot of other people more discerning, informed, and engaged. that can cause progress. like here, u.s. stocks are up,

but they're not the only thing on a roll this year. the 116th congress, most diverse in history. humpback whales recovering from near extinction. this tortoise we thought was extinct, it was found after 100 years. they're small unless you care about the environment and the ecosystem. we got to see the first close range image of the far side of the moon. nasa completed its first all female space walk. all major pageants won by women of color. the u.s. soccer team won the world cup. do you think that would come if we didn't scrutinize ourselves and where we need to be better. "sesame street" launching a show to help refugees. scientists able to spot alzheimer's more than a decade before symptoms. two men cured of hiv. mental health being discussed as something other than a stigma. states responding to calls to help people make society safer, thereby make us more free to live as we choose. even in crisis, we see this country is strong even as it's weak, our fellow americans are at their best when others are at their worst.

riley how well, you remember him? he died tackling a gunman at unc charlotte. >> you look out for others. you protect. you do what needs to be done. and like i said, when i heard the classroom, i knew it. i just knew it. >> we both did. >> you just knew it. if he's anywhere near a situation like that, he's going to run towards it and try to stop it. >> all our hearts broke for them. but those parents were so certain of the type of man they raised. he was like a jedi. now he actually is one. the visual "star wars" dictionary just released has a reference to jedi master and historian riley howell. look he's proof of the truth. we can be angry and ignorant and unkind. but there's so many of us, even the young, who can be heroes. don't be burned out by the bad. don't put blinders on to all the happiness that's going on around you as well in this world. it's not about being pollyanna. z it's about being practical.

as for us, we do what we do. we fight your fight. we demand the powerful answer to you and sometimes it works like this did. >> did you ask the ukraine to investigate joe biden? >> no. actually i didn't. >> so you did ask ukraine to look into joe biden? >> of course i did. >> you just said you didn't. >> you've got to have the fight because every so often, heated moments, they shed some light. not always, but sometimes. as ugly as it's been, and it is uglier for some of us than anything i've ever seen in this business before, you definitely have the facts of what happened and when and why with ukraine and trump co. is it worthy of impeachment or removal? that's the lawmakers' call, and it's your place to judge their call. it's my job, the media's job, to relay and scrutinize the process. the point is, this country is strong because we expose our weaknesses. the way those in power handle criticism can galvanize support and also birth a formidable

challenger. both of those fates make our democracy stronger. good, bad, ugly, it's all real. the job is to face them all the same way. and as a people, to be more about unity than division. if we can do those two things, we will be the best we've ever been. thank you for watching. up next, i want you to join cnn's tom foreman for "all the best, all the worst: 2019." things happen. and sometimes you can find yourself heading in a new direction. but at fidelity, we help you prepare for the unexpected with retirement planning and advice for what you need today and tomorrow. because when you're with fidelity, a partner who makes sure every step is clear, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward.

a partner who makes sure every step is clear, but in my mind i'm still 25. that's why i take osteo bi-flex, to keep me moving the way i was made to. it nourishes and strengthens my joints for the long term.

osteo bi-flex - now in triple strength plus magnesium.

mystified, and mesmerized by the biggest stories from the whole year from politics, sports, music, movies, pop culture and more. we'll cover it all with our guests, comedians and actors gilbert gottfried, judy gold, helen hong, and owen smith, plus conservative political analyst carrie sheffield. it's "all the best, all the worst: 2019."