is this what law and order looks like? i'm michael smerconish in. philadelphia. the president normally gives good ear. even if you don't like it. he has this unique ability to know what plays with his base even when others hear things that sound like a misstep. think mexican immigrants are bringing in drugs or i like people who weren't captured. in this case i wonder if he's misreading his intended audience. how can the president prioritize law and order as he does when discussing civil unrest in american cities and then turnaround and refuse to accept the rule of law with regard to the election outcome. several times in recent days the president has refused to commit to the peaceful transfer of power if he loses.

on wednesday he said this. >> we'll have to see what happens. you know i've been complaining very strongly about the ballots. >> thursday morning he said he agreed with senator lindsey graham that a supreme court ruling would be final, but added the following. >> these ballots are a horror show. they found six ballots in an office yesterday in garbage can. that's emblematic of thousands of offices. >> last night in virginia it was this. >> only way we'll lose is if there's mischief. we do want a very friendly transition. but we don't want to be cheated. and be stupid and oh, we'll do a transition. we know that there were thousands and thousands of ballots that made the difference through cheating.

we're not going stand for it. >> his thursday comment was referring to a department of justice press release concerning nine military ballots that were discarded in lucerne, pennsylvania. several were cast for trump. an investigation found the ballots were thrown into the office trash by an independent contractor on their third day of work. last week conservative columnist peggy noonan predicting this. there will be stories my cousin saw bag of votes being thrown into the ohio river. there will be respiratory theories fed by a frenzy internet. even the republican controlled senate responded by unanimously giving consent to a resolution from democratic senator joe manchin in which the senate said this it's reaffirming its

commitment to towardly transfer of power called for by the constitution of the united states and intends there should be no disruptions by the president or any other person in power to overturn the will of the people of the united states. nonetheless the president clearly thinks his talk motivates his base. in 2016 he said in advance that the election would be stolen. after he won the election he claimed he also won the popular vote but that undocumented immigrants voted and skewed the results. how does it help him? is it politically advantageous? does it really energize his base? it certainly infuriates and mobilizes his opponents. he some observers say this is just trump igniting one of his fire storms and enjoying the fallout. as the "daily beast" put it quote among longtime trump hands the idea of him basking in storm of his creation was entirely

expected. trump is just being trump and people are playing right into his hand said stewart jolly who served as national field director the for trump's 2016 presidential run. the media always takes the bait. well maybe that's true. after all in the midst of decrying mail balloting, the president himself sent a tweet telling floridians that they should be voting by mail. but here's the problem. the president is suggesting that who is president in 2021 will be decided not at the ballot box nor in the courts but instead and for the first time on america's streets. the president is threatening a disorderly lly method of who ho his job. mega byte violent threats, not violence, respecting what the voters say and what the courts rule. there's nothing law and order about that. i want to know what you think. go my website, smerconish.com

this hour and answer the following question does the president's refusal to commit to a peaceful transference of power hurt or help his re-election? speak being of the president's ability to mobilize voters i want you to meet michael sandel. he decries credentialism as the last acceptable form of prejudice. the rhoades scholar is a harvard professor whose lectures have been viewed online by millions. he argues in a new book that part of the president's political success is his ability to tap into resentment against elites and grievances that are economic, moral, cultural and also based on self-esteem. the book is called "the--

tyh tyrrany of merit." >> i agree with everything you said in your commentary but i worry that those of us who consider trump a menace are going about this in wrong way. we shouldn't take i had bait. and become entangled in a fever pitched outrage at every new outrageous thing he says. trump is not a dictator. he only plays one on television and we should not play along as his supporting cast. we should focus, instead, on his failures to help the working people who elected him in first place, and focus on the democrats alternative. that's where i think our focus should be. >> your book is a cogent plaination of how he was able to get elected. and it begins in '90s when you

start hearing ideals from your harvard students. what were they saying? >> well, it was almost impossible for students who made their way through the gauntlet of stress strewn high pressure achievement of the adolescent years not to believe that their success was their own doing, resulted of their own effort. a bit small this is what we see in our society at large in recent decades, the divide between winners and losers has deepened. it isn't only economic inequality that's the problem it's changing attitude towards success. the tendency of those on top believes third success is of their own doing and by implication those who have fallen behind must deserve their fate as well.

that's that's right of the problem, i think. >> there's a quote from your book that i'll put on the screen and read to the audience i think sums up well the thesis. you say in an unequal society those who would land on top want to believe their success is morally justified in a meritocratic society that means they won their success through their own talent and hard work. are you saying talent and hard work are an irrelevancy. i like to think i secured this position through hard work and potentially some talent. >> right. i'm not saying that people don't deserve credit for hard work and developing their talents to serve the common good. but what i am suggesting is that we have fallen into the assumption that the money people make is the measure of their contribution to the common good. this leads to meritocratic

hubris to those on top. one of the most potent sours of the populace backlash against elites we've seen, most dramatically in 2016 is the sense by many working people that elites are looking down on them. and i think there is a legitimate complaint here and the book tries to explain why and what we might do about it. >> is there anything socialist in what you're advocating? >> no. i'm not saying there has to be an equal equality of income and wealth, but i do think that we need to focus squarely on the dignity of work. the democratic party has been implicated along with republicans in dealing with the inequalities of globalization, not by confronting those

inequalities directly but instead by telling people if you want to compete and win in the new economy go to college, then maybe you too will have a chance to rise. individual upward mobility, first of all, has stalled in this country. more than that. it's not inadequate response to inequality, nearly two-thirds of americans don't have a four year university degree. so we should not create an economy that makes a four year university degree necessary condition for dignified work and a decent life. we should focus on how to make things better for feminine, whatever their credentials. that should be our focus, i think, michael. >> final question. almost unfair to make you sum it all up in 30 second or so, but what's it got to do with president trump's election and potential re-election? >> trump succeeded, for all his

lies, the one authentic thing about him is his sense of grievance and resentment. he managed to tap into the sense of resentment and grievance that decades of deepening inequality and meritocatic hubris created. so my hope is that we shift to the dignity of work, put it right at the center of our politics, and ask what would it mean to reconfigure our economy to respect people for the contributions they make to the economy, to the common good, to their families and communities whether or not they be well credentialed. >> professor, thank you so much. i really enjoyed the book. made me think. i appreciate your time. >> thank you, michael. >> what are your thoughts? tweet he me at smerconish or go me to my facebook page. dave adams says this is so

ridiculous. these were gotcha questions from the press. the it is a legit question and he loses he'll concede. you and the press -- i love it you and the press painting with a broad stroke love to play the voting game. gotcha questions? is it a gotcha question. put that camera on me. is it a gotcha question to be asked will you accept the outcome of the election and not simply say of course i will. come on. make sure you're voting at smerconish.com this hour. the politics of this, is this helping him? because oftentimes he says things and there's a community outrage. you know mexico and the rapists. or i respect -- we scratch our heads and say holy smokes that will finish him off. how about in this instance? does the refusal to commit to a peaceful transference of power help or hurt his re-election?

still to come the first presidential debate is tuesday night. what can the candidate do move the needle when so little else has in past year. and what should they try not to do. i'll talk to one of america's top debate coaches, tom graham is here. this afternoon president trump will announce rbg's replacement. sources say it will be amy coney barrett of indiana. with election so close what will be the democratic strategy for the confirmation hearings. senate whip dick durbin is also here. and protests erupted after a grand jury did not charge three officers with the death of breonna taylor. but was it, in fact, the only possible legal out come? >> a young lady lost her life, but, you know, we do have to take into account that her boyfriend did shoot at the cops and shot a cop. the different positions i've had

taught me how to be there for others. ♪ i started out as a cashier. i mean, the sky's the limit with walmart. it's all up to you. ♪ ♪ omnipod delivers insulin through a discreet waterproof pod... to help simplify life. no more daily injections. it's game-changing. take your insulin anywhere with a small tubeless pod. and the wireless controller helps deliver the right amount of insulin. covered by medicare part d. get started with a benefits check today. go to omnipod.com for risk information and instructions for use. consult your healthcare provider before starting on omnipod. simplify diabetes. simplify life. omnipod.

simplify life. if these walls could talk, they'd cry uncle. they didn't plan to become offices... or yoga studios. but they've stood by us. even when we got a little stir crazy. for that, they deserve some thanks. they deserve benjamin moore. eh, not enough fiber... chocolate would be good...

snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. with nutrients to help support immune health.

for as little as $5, now anyone can own companies in the s&p 500, even if their shares cost more. at $5 a slice, you could own ten companies for $50 instead of paying thousands. all commission free online. schwab stock slices: an easy way to start investing or to give the gift of stock ownership. schwab. own your tomorrow.

say her name. breonna taylor. two louisville police officers were shot wednesday night as protesters marched following news that a grand jury did not charge three officers directly with taylor's death. police shot breonna taylor in her home while executing a search warrant six months ago. the grand jury indicted detective rick hankison. no one is being held responsible for the death of the 26-year-old. was this the right call? it's a complicated case that begs scrutiny. the incident that led to her death began when police were executing a search warrant in a narcotics investigation centered

around taylor's ex-boyfriend in the early hours of march 13th. taylor was sleeping next to her current boyfriend kenneth walker 3rd. they heard a noise. walker told investigators they walked to the door yelling at the top of their lungs asking who was there. they heard no response. police maintain they did announce themselves. the "new york times" questioned a dozen neighbors from the night in question found only one who heard police before entering. they forced entry into taylor's home and walker said he fired off a shot as soon as the door blew open and before he could see who it was. in response three officers at the scene fired more than 30 rounds collectively. here's kentucky attorney general david cameron on two officers who were not charged. >> our investigation showed and the grand jury agreed that mattingly and cosgrove were justified in their return of deadly fire after having been fired upon by kenneth walker.

>> this is important to note. walker was also justified in firing his first and only shot as he thought it was a home invader and had every right to defend breonna taylor's residence. bottom line is this, this was a terrible outcome. breonna taylor did not destory of die. she was caught in the crossfire between individuals exercising their respective rights at self-defense. the decision not to charge any of the officers with her death was probably the right legal call. "washington post" opinion columnist wrote a piece titled "correcting the misinformation about breonna taylor" is a take similar to my own the wanton endangerment charge was justified. that doesn't mean the conversation should end there. quote taylor's death of not as cameron suggested simply a tragedy for which no one is to blame. the police work in this case was sloppy. the warrant service was reckless. taylor is dead because of a cascade of errors, bad judgment

and der releliction of duty. he joins me now and author of a book "rise of the warrior cop." what's the biggest misperception online? >> i think cameron probably fed the biggest misperception and that is that, you know, when he said that a witness heard the police announce themselves and you just heard it declared that they did knock and announce themselves and therefore taylor and walker should have known police were at the door. he didn't go quite that far but by saying it so definitively that was the implications. you know, hearing that, i'm sitting on my couch and watching that press conference it sounded like he was transferring sort of the blame for all of this on to walker and this is the man who

just lost the woman he loved and it just seemed sort of unnecessarily cruel to this guy who is going through a lot right now. that should never have happened. breonna taylor was only a part of this investigation. one thing i point out in the column is that, you know, at some point apparently they decided that she was what they called a soft target or soft threat and so they originally got a no knock warrant which we can get into if you want which was illegal actually and then decided she was a soft target. if they didn't. decide that and went ahead with the no knock the warrant would have been served by a highly trained s.w.a.t. team, an ambulance nearby. because they decided she was only a soft target the warrant was served by these police officers in street clothes who broke down the door, not as well train in these tactics. there was an ambulance there that they told to leave the scene about an hour before the

raid. so she basically got all of the sort of worse aspects of this, of the most violent sort of tactics what they call dramatic entry and none of the benefits of having it served by a well train s.w.a.t. team and having medical staff nearby. >> i'm sympathic to breonna taylor and to breonna taylor's family. i'm also sympathic to the police who were put in that position, middle of the night, 12:15 a.m. seemingly ill equipped and with this contra dick information whether it's knock or should announce themselves. they too were done wrong. do you agree with that? >> yeah. i mean i think that the problem with this was during the investigation. i think the problem workforce the affidavit for the search warrant. the problem workforce the judge who signed off on it. i'm not ready to let -- maybe because i still think this was done in kind of a reckless manner.

you know, to say that she's a soft target and he they knocked and announce. the whole purpose of the knock and announce is to give people a warning inside 0 so they can come to the door and let the police in peacefully and avoid destruction to their property. but if you're schlepping at 12:30 in morning and pounding on the door and maybe they did announce themselves. if people inside the apartment didn't hear the announcement that's no different than a no knock raid. that's entire purpose of the announcement is to let somebody like walker, who you know, had nothing to hide. had a concealed-carry permit. you know, this is not a guy who had any rational reason to decide to knowingly say i'm going take on this raiding team of police officers with my handgun. you know, by all accounts he did not know who they were. that's why he called 911. >> understood. i have an important and final kwa question and it's this.

here's what i took away from the press conference. you take way my misunderstanding. six shots hit breonna taylor. law enforcement, there was a contradiction there because kentucky state police were not able to identify but the fbi was able to identify one of the bullets in her, the fatal bullet i believe. how can they say the police officer who broke formation and charged with his wanton behavior hadn't fired into her if they don't know the origin of those other five shots? i hope i asked that clearly. >> yeah. i understand your question. you know, they can't. and ballisticics, the ability to distinguish which bullet a gun came from when it's the same type of gun and bullet is often overstated in our criminal justice system. there's been tests and study showing that. if you can't definitively trace

it you can't charge him. my point is like a lot of investigations of potential criminal police conduct, you know, the police here were given every bit of the benefit of the doubt. they were shown great deference and understanding the circumstance. that's fine. they should be. anybody else in the criminal justice system doesn't get that same kind much deference and understanding. if everybody got treated the same way police get treated during investigations i wouldn't have a whole lot to write about. >> under stood. thank you. appreciate your time. >> my pleasure. thank you. up ahead this afternoon in rose garden president trump will officially name his pick to replace rbg. sources say it will be judge amy coney barrett, federal appellate judge and notre dame law professor. how will the battle play out? i'll ask senator dick durbin and the first presidential debate is this tuesday. what the president and joe biden

need achieve and how should they go about it. the speaker of the house says biden shouldn't even participate. >> not that i don't think he won't be excellent i just think the president has no fidelity to factor truth and actually in his comments the last few days no fidelity to the constitution of the united states. ♪ wow ♪ uh-huh $0 copays on primary care visits and lab tests. ♪ wow ♪ uh-huh plus, $0 copays on hundreds of prescription drugs. ♪ wow ♪ uh-huh unitedhealthcare medicare advantage plans. including the only plans with the aarp name. most plans have a $0 premium. it's time to take advantage. ♪ wow itthat selling carsarvana,e. 100% online wouldn't work. but we went to work. building an experience that lets you shop over 17,000 cars from home. creating a coast to coast network to deliver your car as soon as tomorrow.

recruiting an army of customer advocates to make your experience incredible. and putting you in control of the whole thing with powerful technology. that's why we've become the nation's fastest growing retailer. because our customers love it. see for yourself, at carvana.com. tonight, i'll be eating a veggie cheeseburger on ciabatta, no tomatoes.. [hard a] tonight... i'll be eating four cheese tortellini with extra tomatoes. [full emphasis on the soft a] so its come to this? [doorbell chimes] thank you. [doorbell chimes] bravo. careful, hamill. daddy's not here to save you. oh i am my daddy. wait, what?

what are you talking about?

. the death of supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg last week left the country in mourning. also shaken up the 2020 election. president trump and senate republicans quickly made clear that they won't waste time in filling her seat. later this afternoon president trump is expected to nominate judge amy coney barrett. it looks like majority leader mitch mcconnell will have the senate votes needed to confirm trump's pick. so what will be the democratic response? joining me now is senate

democratic whip and member of the senate judiciary committee illinois senator dick durbin. senator, thanks so much for being here. is amy coney barrett qualified for the supreme court? >> good question. usually that's what the senate judiciary committee sits down try to decide. we should. it's a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. we got a problem this time. it appears senator mitch mcconnell republican leader of the senate and the president are determined to get this done in record time to break the rules in doing it. remember four years ago antonin scalia and mitch mcconnell tirelessly announced we couldn't fill that vacancy with president obama. avenues lame duck. he only had a year left in his term. we had to wait until the next election, for the next president to decide. mcconnell has tossed that. now he says let this president, this republican president decide when he's ready. secondly we usually have hearing in terms of writing, opinion, background. we threw that out with

kavanaugh. the decision was made by the trump administration. kavanaugh will be considered and large gaps remained in the information given us. we'll go through the same thing here. considering the fact that this supreme court nominee may serve on the court for 30 years, it is nothing short of outrageous they want to approve her in fewer than 30 days. >> i get that. respectfully i understand the hypocrisy argument. i happen to senator. but nerve tvertheless is she qualified? >> here's the basic fundamental question. we know when she's put on the court she will be able to sinlt on the oral argument on november 10th about the future of the affordable care act. this is an act, of course, under president obama, obamacare, which gives health insurance 20 million americans and protects all of us in terms of health insurance policies. so we can't be discriminated against for pre-existing

conditions something americans do and treasure. we have in amy coney barrett, a pronouncement that earlier decisions by the supreme court save the affordable care act was wrong. there's one issue. there's a second issue. this president has raised a constitutional issue about whether he is going to abide by the decision the american people in this election. i can't think of anything more fundamental in the constitution. he went further that's why i need to fill the supreme court before election. that's what he said. when you look at those statements they are nothing short of amazing, startling for a president to say that. i want to know what amy coney barrett has to say about that. >> okay. so what will then be -- i understand you have these process concerns given the garland situation. what will be your approach, for example, we're used to courtesy calls being made on senators soon after the announcement is made. the hearings. will the democratic party, the members of the senate judiciary committee participate in those

hearings? >> i can only speak for myself. in this age of covid-19 we have to be careful. i met with every single nominee for the supreme court because i met that's not only respectful but important. we have to do it differently now. i plan on establishing some sort of contact, safe contact for both the nominee, myself and my staff and in course the at th y -- courtesy manner. i think that's only right. >> should people of praise even be referenced in senate judiciary committee hearings pertaining to this nominee >> i'm sorry people of praise? >> the organization to which supposedly she belongs as part of her catholic faith. trying understand exactly what the boundaries are of decorum

and propriety related to religion. >> that's an important question and a challenging one. the constitution is very clear on religion. three things. just three. they guided us for more than two serns. first you can believe what you want toel second there's no official state religion. third there's no litmus test. you can't use the religion of a person against them when they are seeking appointment to the ordinary legal process. now you have amy coney barrett. she's going to push against this by writings she published years and years ago which questioned whether people of a certain religious faith could do things on the bench that might violate their conscience. it really created a muddle here when it comes to what is the appropriate line of questioning. i'll be extremely careful. >> but, senator, i watched your questioning of her, i guess it was three years ago and i thought that she gave a very direct response which is to say that she embraces her faith but

it plays no role in her judicial opinions, temperament, et cetera, et cetera. doesn't that end that line of inquiry? >> of course. that's what you want to hear. whatever your religious belief whether you have one or not it won't influence your opinion. what you asked me is it still zmerng of course. it should be a matter of record for her to said again and i hope she leads with it. >> senator durbin, thanks so much for your time. we appreciate it. >> thanks, michael. >> let's chink on your tweets and facebook comments. from twitter, i think. what do we have? why is joe biden's catholic faith a good thing but his nominee for scotus having a catholic faith making her a monster? nobody here said it makes her a dangerous theocratic monster. in her confirmation hear for her appellate position this was a line of inquiry. hey, can i roll the diane

feinstein tape right now or does that screw you up? can we do that? i can. good. play this tape. i want you to watch this. >> i think whatever a religion s-it has its own dogma. the law is totally different. the dogma lives loudly within you. >> it's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, already they derived from faith or any where else on the law. >> so i want you to see that because that's a much talked about moment from, i think, it was three years ago. don't hold me that. senator fine sign criticized in many quarters for raising the issue because it smacks to some religious test. my point to senator durbin we've gone over this ground with her and she has shade my faith might guide me when i'm not wearing a robe but doesn't play a role

when aim. will it end it? probably not. make sure that you are answering the survey question of the day. it's smerconish.com. does the president's refusal -- you know what he's been saying in the last couple of days about his refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. is that helping or hurting him in the election? still to come there are so many classic moments we remember from presidential debates, some that hurt the candidates. at tuesday's debate what do president trump and vice president biden need to achieve and what must they avoid? i'll ask one of america's top debate coaches. now, staying home isn't just staying in the place they love. it's staying safe. home instead. to us, it's personal. balanced nutrition for strength and energy. whoo-hoo! great tasting ensure with 9 grams of protein, 27 vitamins and minerals, and nutrients to

support immune health. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair®. we've got the retinol that gives you results in one week. not just any retinol. accelerated retinol sa. one week is all it takes. neutrogena®.

lively hearing aids have been a game changer for me. the process with lively. is insanely easy, you take a hearing test on your computer the doctor programs it, it shows up at your house a few days later. you can stream calls or music through it, it's got multiple settings, audio adjustments, so you can raise and lower the levels. but it's a fraction of the cost of the other devices. it's instilled some confidence i didn't have before. try lively risk free for 100 days. visit listenlively.com at morgan stanley, a global collective of thought leaders offers investors a broader view. ♪ we see companies protecting the bottom line by putting people first. we see a bright future, still hungry for the ingenuity of those ready for the next challenge. today, we are translating decades of experience into strategies for the road ahead.

we are morgan stanley. want conservative judges on i'the court.vative, this may make you feel better, but i really don't care. if an opening comes in the last year of president trump's term and the primary process has started we'll wait to the next election. i want you to use my words against me. you're on the record. yeah, hold the tape. lindsey must go and the lincoln project are responsible for the content of this ad. you can't claim that because it's inanimate! [ sigh ] people ask ... what sort of a person should become a celebrity accountant? and, i tell them, "nobody should." hey, buddy. what's the damage? [ on the phone ] i bought it! the waterfall? nope! my new volkswagen. a volkswagen?! i think we're having a breakthrough here. welcome to caesar's palace. thank you.

♪ but my dream is to help young women feel empowered. i'd like to have online courses teaching them body positivity and self-confidence. but when covid hit, i needed a financial plan to make it a reality. without andrea, my financial advisor from northwestern mutual, it didn't feel possible. she really put me at ease. andrea has my best interests at heart. she protected my dream. first presidential debate finally upon us tuesday night in cleveland. what do the candidates need achieve? we and they already know the topics as announced by chris wallace of fox news. they will be the trump and biden records, the supreme court, covid-19, the economy, race and violence in our cities and the

integrity of the election. but what debate strategy would be most advantageous for president trump and vice president biden for both the live viewing audience and the ones who just may see the clips late center joining me now is tom graham director of debate at southern illinois university in carbondale. his debate teams have won five national championships. he's been named national debate coach of the year three times. thanks for being here. i think joe biden has an advantage going into this insofar as the president has tried portray him as frail and, therefore, the bar has been lowered and it should be easy relatively speaking for joe biden to step over it. what am i missing? >> you're not missing anything. they've already made this mistake. they were previously saying biden couldn't put two sentences together and then he just crushed with it his speech at the democratic national convention. so then the narrative had to change from the trump campaign that biden can only use a

teleprompter. if you go back a month that was the narrative before then. they've already made the mistake once. now they are going he can only use a teleprompter. he can't use a teleprompter in debates. if he does well he may exceed expectations. my teams in debate have always been expected to win. we have very good debate teams. when other teams come close to us we would lose a lot of close decisions because judges over thought that debate and when it grew close we didn't expect that and give the other team more credit. >> donald trump stepped on to that stage in 2016 against a slew of individuals who had been debating their entire life. ted cruz was a collegiate debate champion at princeton and yet trump bested the field. what is it that he's able to do in debates? >> trump does a couple of things that are unorthodox.

one of the things is he'll interrupt you a little bit. now interrupting works for and against you. obviously, it's rude. but what it does do in the form of debate that i coach now you're allowed to stand up and interrupt your opponent if they call one. the reason you want to do that is because it throws them off their train of thought. so he was able to throw ted cruz off his train of thought. he wasn't ready for that. ted cruz doesn't know how to deal with insults or just basic attacks. it proved him a bit back. it's a street debater versus a technical debater. donald trump is absolutely a street debater. if you don't practice against that you won't do well against that. >> dr. graham, i watched all of the primary debates, some of them in person. and i have the continued critique of joe biden. he tries to accomplish too much. he's trying to say too many things, cite too many statistics, and i thought what he really needs to do is catch

his breath, speak thematically and say one thing. you're the expert not me. what's your critique of biden? >> i think that's exactly right. probably because i told you this before. don't take credit for my argument. i think the problem here is that there are always subsets of every topic. when kamala harris bested joe biden when she was talking about bussing, what joe biden needed to do was think okay don't get into the minutia, bus is a subset of civil rights. i can just talk generally about civil rights rather than the minutia. there was one point in the debate that joe biden was trying to say something well 4.2% and as i told you any time you talk about .2% you're talking to lotion. remember this debate, though is against donald trump. he's not going be heavy in detail. so the things that joe biden might have thought he needed against the other democrats he

absolutely will look even worse if he goe minutia, into the weed of the debate. think bigger picture that's how he should debate. >> dr. tom graham thank you so much. i appreciate your expertise. >> absolutely. >> from the world of facebook, i think. what do we have? trump has debate practice every time he faces the media. biden will only win if he wears an invisible ear piece. you know it's kind of interesting. you wonder what kind of preparation behind closed doors trump is really doing. i mean he made a big deal over biden putting a lid on it yesterday and presumably or maybe the day before spending the day before preparing for the debate. your first point is he's constantly out there interacting with the media but at some point he needs to couple with closing statement and thematic reference that doesn't come from being

bombarded by the media or mixing it up with the press corps. catch cnn's pre-game debate discussion which will include yours truly at 7:00 eastern this tuesday. still to come, your best and worst tweets and facebook comments and we'll give you the final results of the survey question at smerconish.com. does the president's refusal to commit to a peaceful transference of power is that helping or hurting his re-election? you

time to see how you responded to the survey question this week. @smerconish.com. does the president's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of

power help or hurt his re-electi re-election? what are the results? 88% say hurt. 12% say help. lot of voting, nearly 20,000 people. what i was really trying to get at, and i guess you know this, is i wanted to know how does it play with the base? because so many times in the past there have been statements by him, conduct by him, that the dominant media says oh my god, what a catastrophe for him politically and ends up being to his benefit. is this one of those cases? most of you are saying no. what do we have from social media? smerconish, you are a democrat hack. he did not say he would not transfer power and have you asked the left if they will accept a real donald trump victory. listen to the words i did play. i played four or five sound clips from him. all he would need to do is say -- well, of course i'm going to accept the outcome of a lawful election. why would you even ask me that question? one more if i have time.

love him or hate him, trump is the masters of the shiny object. his opposition seemingly takes the bait hook line and sinker. covid, 200,000 american deaths. so that was part of what professor sandell was arguing. you have to resist taking the shiny object. but how if you're in the media do you not discuss a commander in chief who throws doubt on whether he'll accept the outcome of the election? tuesday night is the first debate. i'll be part of cnn's coverage at 7:00 p.m. that night. hope to see you then. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

tonight, i'll be eating a veggie cheeseburger on ciabatta, no tomatoes.. [hard a] tonight... i'll be eating four cheese tortellini with extra tomatoes. [full emphasis on the soft a] so its come to this? [doorbell chimes] thank you. [doorbell chimes] bravo. careful, hamill. daddy's not here to save you. oh i am my daddy.

wait, what? what are you talking about? i will send out an army to find you in the middle of the darkest night it's true, i will rescue you oh, i will rescue you

coming up this hour, election insecurity. president trump says the only way he'll lose the election is if it's rigged. plus, the big reveal. the president's supreme court pick set to be revealed in just a few hours. and then, michelle obama's non-profit tackles two big issues at once today -- feeding the hungry and getting out the vote. ♪ want to wish you a good morning. thank you for being with us. it's saturday, september 26th i'm christi paul. >> i'm martin savidge in for victor blackwell you're in the "cnn newsroom." >> thanks for waking up early with us here.