what's the downside for humoring him, for this little bit of time, the official asked? no one seriously thinks the result will change. after dozens and dozens of failed, court challenges, tonight, we know, the results will not change. but there is a downside because this was never really about what the president thinks, it's what he would do. who has honestly never demonstrated to put the ability to put his country, before himself, is now doing. what he is billing as the big one. a supreme-court challenge, led by texas, pitting state against state, not to mention fantasy and junk science, versus facts. >> president donald trump deserves his day in court. the supreme court. and all i can say is god bless texas. >> you think he practices that? i think he does. the vice president, in georgia, today. a state that certified joe biden

the victor, after counting the vote thee times. a state with a republican governor, and republican election officials, all of whom, said their election was free and fair. texas attorney general, ken paxton, is now asking the supreme court to invalidate the votes there. all of them. along with all the ballots cast in michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin. 18 other republican-controlled states have signed on to this effort. and today, more than 100 house republicans got in on it, too. filing their own amicus brief. >> president trump wins 19 of the 20 bellwether counties around the country, increases his vote with hispanic-americans, african-americans, but joe biden, who hung out in his basement. somehow, joe biden gets 80 million votes and wins? and gets 12 million votes than -- than barack obama did? so, nothing squares with what we know and, historically, what's happened.

>> yeah. nothing squares with what we know. congressman jordan is parroting, almost word for word, words expressed in the president's supporting brief in the case, which he says, quote, won 18 of the country's 19 so-called bellwether counties. counties, whose vote, historically, almost always goes for the candidate who wins the election. which is actually true, but completely irrelevant. i mean, for years, texas, and most of the south, was solidly -- solidly democratic. and then, it wasn't. that's called voting. that's what happens. and that's what happens when a lot of people vote. and a lot of people voted. the brief, also, cites president trump's nearly 75 million votes as a record for any incumbent president. yeah. okay. it doesn't mention president-elect biden's more than 81 million votes, which is a record for any candidate. nor, does it mention how much of the massive turnout was from people determined to try and get trump out of office. in fact, according to cnn's exit polling, 32% of biden's more than 81 million voters said

their ballot was a vote against trump. and republicans, further down the ticket, by the way, including congressman jordan, did just fine. you don't hear congressman jordan raising the issue of fraud, in his election. he seems fine. he won. the president didn't win. the brief, also, claims that no candidate has ever lost the election, after winning ohio and florida, as the president did. that's, actually, false. richard nixon won both, in 1960, but lost to john kennedy. the lawsuit, itself, cites a dubious, statistical analysis, which the president's defenders, have, of course, seized upon, lately. >> for president trump to be as far ahead as he was at 3:00 a.m. in these four states. michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin, georgia. and for the vote to swing by as much as it did, the probability of that, in one state, is one in one quadrillion. that's one, comma, 15 zeroes. to happen in all four, it's one, comma, 15 zeroes, to the fourth

power. >> that's the kayleigh mcenany. this assumes the votes counted after election night would have been divided the same as the ones cast on election day. except, we know they weren't. democrats voted heavily by mail-in and absentee ballot, as was discussed for months because the president was railing about that. in pennsylvania, especially, last ballots to be counted came from heavily democratic counties. same in wisconsin and in michigan. president also arguing he won because he was winning, before all the votes were counted. so, that's idiotic, no? i mean, yes? yeah. idiotic. but, that is what he's saying. >> the alleged biden margin of victory in several states is entirely accounted for by extraordinarily large, midnight vote dumps.

you saw them with going up to the sky. all, extremely skewed to biden. >> hmm, midnight vote dumps. it sounds suspicious. but, maybe, one of the reasons those ballots were counted so late was that republican-controlled legislatures made it illegal to count them early. yeah. that's not even the lamest au t argument the president is making. here is what he tweeted just yesterday. at 10:00 p.m. on election evening, we were at 97% win with the so-called bookies. i mean, the implication is a bunch of vegas touts tell him it's a sure thing. how could he lose? i suppose, from a guy who went broke running casinos, or trying to run them, or running them into the ground, this may make sense. or maybe, he was talking about the landmark case, house v. suckers. in any case, as to the thrust of his supporting brief and his case in chief it's that one

state can challenge the way another state runs its elections. republican senator john cornyn says he is struggling to, quote, understand the legal theory. i think there are a lot of folks who are struggling to understand the legal theory. in its brief today, pennsylvania called this seditious abuse of the judicial process. and here's what adam kingsinger had to say about what the president and his supporters are doing. >> puts this country in a very dangerous moment in time. what have we taught our children about politics? that it's a noble pursuit? or that to win is everything and tweeting and yelling the loudest is the pgt ath to victory? we've tribalized and we have dehumanized. >> repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. the president, meantime, he is doing just that. over and over, again. tweeting, today, quote, most corrupt election in history, by far. we won.

there's no evidence that's true because it's not true. tens of millions of his followers believe it and that is sad. the president's brief even cites this as a reason the supreme court should rule in their favor, and that kind of gets the nub of this. it's a circular argument. fanning mistrust and inciting mistrust, as evidence. and then, it's kind of on a rinse-and-repeat cycle, until you've got states and citizens at each other's throats. >> when you have more than a third of your electorate, who thinks there's a major problem a stolen election, that is not a healthy situation. >> yeah. we can agree with that. sure. yeah, that's not a healthy situation. but, who's made those people feel this way? it's the president of the united states. and mr. jordan, there. especially, when that -- that belief is false. so, yes, it's upsetting that so many people believe it, but it is false. and that's just the way it is. it's even more so, when a person

spreads those falsehoods, and exploits those falsehoods in a desperate attempt to overturn the election he lost. more on this from white house correspondent, maggie haberman. maggie, there is almost no chance this latest stratey from president trump to overturn the election will work but he is pressing on, regardless. he is still making money on this. it's been a huge boom for him, so i understand the financial motive. what, other than the financial motive, would be the goal in continuing to pursue this? and is anyone around the president, i think i know the answer to this, pushing back on him, at this point, at all? >> there are some people who have, anderson, at various points. but for the most part, his circle has gotten incredibly small. there are very few people who he's actually either talking to or listening to. and many people are enabling him, in his desire to push ahead with something that both would overthrow the will of the people, and would tattoo joe biden, in some way, in his hopes, as -- as some questionable president. and those are his goals.

look. this is somebody who has spent decades suing, you know, every problem that came into his life as a way of handling things. he takes everything to the courts. this is the one time he has found something that he can't sue. except, he's trying to show that he can. and there's no precedent for this. most legal experts don't anticipate the supreme court will hear this case. and even if they do, they do not anticipate it being successful. but the president, at this point, just sees this rolling on. he has had support in this. i think an important point. it's not just the number of states that have signed on, which is candidly less surprising, given how republican attorneys general have stuck together. but, quarter of house members signed onto this. republican house members in an amicus brief. more republican house members are supporting it than republican house members who aren't. and he is trying to do a show of force with this. that should say something pretty stark to people about the president's grip on his party. this is about power and trying

to exert his will and raise questions about biden. that's it. >> it also says something about the spinelessness of those members of congress. what is the mood in the white house? i mean, is -- president trump's basically, seems to be out of sight, tweeting lies about the election, not really talking about all the americans who are dying on his watch, in record numbers. what is he doing? what -- what is it like in there? do -- do you have a sense? >> yeah, it's grim. i mean, he was -- i was serious. i know that we have way overdone the trope that he's isolated over the last four years. he's actually isolated, at this point. he is speaking, as i said, to very few people. most people are avoiding the oval office because they don't want him to ask, don't you agree, that the election was stolen from me? because they don't want to tell him they disagree with him or they don't want to be yelled at. his mood is often dark. he is snappish, he is churlish. he is, in the word of several advisers, over the job. he does not really feel like doing it, anymore.

and yet, he is sowing enormous distrust across the country, in an ostensible effort to keep the job. and that goes back to the question you asked early on, what is this about? i go back to trying to delegitimize biden as much as anything else. >> john eastman, we know previously made argument about kamala harris not being eligible to be vice president because her parents are immigrants. apparently, reporting directly to president trump. what do you know about why he was hired and what his role is? is he just, you know, one of the few people who is willing to embarrass themselves and go to court in something like it? and how does ted cruz play into this? >> you just answered your own question. he is willing to do what the president is asking, which -- which most of the legal community would not be willing to do. president trump called ted cruz on tuesday night, the senator, asked him if this texas case gets to the supreme court, would he conduct the oral argument on the president's behalf? senator cruz said yes.

we're still a ways from that. this, obviously, has not been agreed to be heard by the supreme court. but cruz is one of the few, republican senators, who is openly embracing this. most texas lawmakers -- and the suit originated with the texas attorney general -- most texas lawmakers or texas public officials, many of them, anyway, are saying there is no legal basis for this suit. this has, really, nothing going for it but it has become a litmus test about fealty to this president. >> the lawsuit is, also, doing is pitting various states against each other. i mean, you have 19 states -- state attorneys general supporting the suit to invalidate millions of votes. pennsylvania went as far as calling the effort seditious abuse of judicial process. clearly, i mean, the white house seems to be all onboard with this. they are fine with this, even though, they're supposedly, a big believer in states rights. >> republicans have historically

portrayed themselves as the party of state rights. now, trying to invalidate millions of votes in -- in four swing states, four battleground states. you know, this is -- this is definitionally, not respecting the rights of other states. and what they're trying to argue. the case they are making about some disenfranchisement of their own state's votes, has had no basis that any court has found plausible or valid in any of the lower courts. >> yeah. it probably made it easier for ted cruz to say, yeah, sure. i will argue this case when it gets to the supreme court, knowing it was very unlickkely get to supreme court. perspective now from former pennsylvania senator, rick santorum. and paul begala. senator santorum, do you think the president allies actually believe this?

particularly, members of congress. because it all seems incredibly dishonest. >> here's what i believe. i believe there are lots of legitimate grounds to protest this election. the chairman down there, david schafer, instead of jumping into bed with rudy giuliani and sydney powell actually did the homework you should be doing, every state chairman should have been doing, which is looking at how many people voted who weren't registered to vote? how many people were felons? how many people were dead? i mean, go through the numbers and see whether there is enough votes there of people who didn't vote legally to overturn the election. and he actually put a very compelling case together but you don't hear anything about it because you have all these, what i consider to be, you know, the giuliani, powell, linwood, these people out there sowing these conspiracy theories that make no sense at all. running with statistics that have nothing to do with the way this election was conducted. to me, are complete, you know -- you know, rabbit holes that --

that are driving people down. and are -- in pennsylvania, was the election conducted correctly? overall, yes. but there were places it was not. we lost a senate seat in pennsylvania. the republicans, because allegheny county decided to count ballots that didn't -- >> okay, hold on. let me just stop for a second. senator santorum, you -- your argument seems to be that you have uncovered a guy who's uncovered, really, the fraud. and nobody's listening because all -- rudy giuliani gets all the oxygen in the room. i mean, if there was a valid case, you're telling me that the president wouldn't have jumped on this guy who -- >> he's on the suit. >> okay. >> no, he's joined the suit and he's on it and it's going to be heard before the court. and -- and i would say, you know, based on what the -- the numbers that i've looked at. and you can -- they're laid out there. there's -- there's probably 7 or 8,000 solid votes there that -- that are pretty clear that these are people who should not have voted. >> there have been three recounts in georgia, right?

they've certified the votes, three times. so, you're saying they've gotten it wrong? >> they certified the count, versus -- you know, what the paper count was, versus what the machine count was. that's not looking at whether the people were actually authorized to vote. they don't do that. and that's the job of the party or the candidate to do that. in the case of georgia, the state chairman there did that job, and he's come up with a fairly substantial number. and i would encourage you to look at it. get him on the show. i'll walk through it. now, are they going to win? i don't know. but they certainly are in pennsylvania and all these other states, there are legitimate cases to be made. in the case of georgia, there is only about 11,000 difference. >> all right. paul? >> it's just sad. it's sad. look. i think what's going on in georgia is that there is two senate races coming up, january 5th. and republican strategists can't dare cross trump because they're worried trump supporters won't turn out, on january 5th.

back in texas, by the way, the rumor mill is, ken paxton, the attorney general who is already under indictment for state securities fraud allegations, is now facing fbi investigation of allegations from several of his top aides that he committed bribery in his use of office. so, the problem with this and the problem with what rick is saying. it really damages our faith in democracy. the test of a democracy is to concede when you lost. rick, i never told you this story. november 8th, 1994, i was a guy. i was the guy who handed the phone to senator and said you got to call senator santorum. it was over. i hate losing. i especially hated losing to you, santorum. but we lost. you won by 87,000 votes and he conceded to you because he was a patriot first, and a partisan second. joe biden, by the way, won by

81,000. that's a santorum-level victory. so, the notion that you or anybody else can contest it, it's really -- it's really destructive to our democracy, though, rick. it is. >> i'm not suggesting that the votes are there in pennsylvania, to overturn the election. i'm not suggesting that, at all. i'm suggesting, in georgia, it's possible. well, if you read the suit, i think it's possible that a court could make that case. but my point is that's the way you make the case. and they have not been making that case. anderson, i didn't really disagree with anything you said in your monologue because, to me, it had nothing to do with what i would consider garden-variety irregularities or cheating or people not following the law, which is where most of this -- most of these irregularities take place. >> but garden variety. that is not what the president's alleging. the president is alleging this massive, rigging thing, and a hundred folks in congress are going along with it. according to legal experts, of all political stripes, this suit has -- the texas suit has no

chance of succeeding. just hypothetically, say the supreme court does rule in favor of texas. then, what happens? a path forward from there? you believe in states' rights. does texas have the right to disenfranchise voters in michigan and pennsylvania and georgia? >> the argument is that it's a federal constitution issue and, therefore, the states have a right to -- >> everyone loves states' rights, until it actually means holding up states' rights. and then, they're all for federal stuff. >> i'm just telling you what the argument is. i'm not -- i'm not saying i agree with that argument, and i don't think the court will agree with that argument. but what they do do in that case, is they do lay out a lot of what i would consider very boring, garden-variety irregularities that i think need to be cleaned up across this country. >> okay. boring, garden-variety

irregularities. those occur in, pretty much, all elections. somebody -- a human makes a mistake. there have now been three certifications in georgia. and in some cases, vote tallies have shifted a tiny amount, one way or another. in some cases, in favor of biden, more. but, again, these are tiny, garden-variety irregularities. that is not what is being alleged, which is potentially, you know, tearing apart the entire trust of half of the electorate. >> the georgia vote has been counted. it's been recounted. it's been canvassed. it's been hand counted. it's been audited. and it has been certified by a trump-supporting republican secretary of state and a trump-supporting republican governor. it is over. it is what monty python would call a dead parrot. the trump candidacy is over. and for them to continue to do this -- and i say, i think they are trying to juice their vote for this runoff. i think it's really destructive of our democracy. they're telling good people,

honorable people, that, somehow, something was stolen from them. and the remedy they are seeking is to throw out 20,000,492 votes. that's preposterous. because texas doesn't like it. it -- it's -- they will be laughed out of the courts. i'm not worried about it being effective as a constitutional or legal strategy. i am terribly worried about destroying people's faith in our democracy because there are a lot of good people, who look to and listen to trump and rick santorum, and others. and -- and they have to be told the truth. and the truth is, their guy lost. >> yeah. >> i just want to make one -- one final point, anderson, if i can. the fact that it's been recounted is not the point that's of the lawsuit. the -- the georgia secretary of state did not look as to whether people who -- who are dead voted. he didn't look at 4,500 people who moved and registered in other states, who then voted in

the state of georgia. those were -- no one -- no one, in a recount, looks at those things. those are the irregularities. they have nothing to do with the recount. they have everything to do with who is qualified to vote and how those votes were counted. >> thanks very much. coming up next. what happens now that the fda-advisory panel has voted to recommend authorization of the first covid vaccine in this country? and later, senator bernie sanders on the fight to provide economic relief, as millions face a grim future, this holiday season. instantly clear every day congestion with vicks sinex saline nasal mist. for drug free relief that works fast. vicks sinex. instantly clear everyday congestion. we're all finding ways to keep moving. but how do we make sure the direction we're headed is forward? at fidelity, you'll get the planning and advice to prepare you for the future, without sacrificing the things that are important to you today. we'll help you plan for healthcare costs,

taxes and any other uncertainties along the way. because with fidelity, you can feel confident that the only direction you're moving is forward. if you have postmenopausal and a high risk for fracture, because with fidelity, you can feel confident now might not be the best time to ask yourself, 'are my bones strong?' life is full of make or break moments. that's why it's so important to help reduce your risk of fracture with prolia®. only prolia® is proven to help strengthen and protect bones from fracture with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions like low blood pressure, trouble breathing, throat tightness, face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen. or new or unusual pain in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping, skipping or delaying prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects,

like low blood calcium, serious infections, which could need hospitalization, skin problems, and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. don't wait for a break, call your doctor today, and ask about prolia®. s- uh um... >>it's shiori. sh-ori. thank you, that's great. ♪ shiori. i really love it.

the light at the end of the tunnel may have just gotten a little brighter. an fda-advisory panel today recommended to approve emergency-use authorization. again, a bright light, but the darkest tunnel. another 2,700 deaths reported, today, so far. that is on top of more than 3,100, yesterday. in other words, two 9/11-size casualty counts, in two days. join meg n joining me now, dr. leana wen, former baltimore health commissioner. dr. wen, now that the advisory committee has recommended authorization for the vaccine, what happens next? >> well, first of all, what happened today, i thought, was really monumental. i mean, the fact that we are now about to get a vaccine that looks to be safe and 95% effective. that's really incredible. and i, also, think it's great that this -- the advisory panel met in public. i mean, everybody was able to

watch the proceedings. we had all the data. so, that transparency is really key. what happens next is the fda is probably going to be granting emergency-use authorization, shortly. this could happen as soon as tomorrow. and within 24 hours of that, there will be 6 million -- more than 6 million doses of this vaccine, now, going out to states. a and, so, we could certainly see shots in arms being given next week. >> one abstained. four voted no. do you know why those four voted no? >> yeah. i followed this pretty closely and i think it's important for people to know, in general, everyone was excited about the data for results. but the way the question was framed is do you support emergency-use authorization for 16-year-olds and up? and there were some people who disagreed with the idea of 16 and 17-year-olds being included in this group because they thought these are individuals who tend to not get as sick as older people. and also, there is insufficient

data, they thought, for 16 and 17-year-olds. so, i think we should take this in context and recognize that emergency-use authorization does mean there are still questions that remain to be answered. but overall, this is a highly safe and effective vaccine. >> i know you were listening for two key points today. should pregnant women receive the vaccine? and which groups are warned to not receive the vaccine? what did you learn? >> so, there were a lot of questions raised. and i think, a lot more questions, than answers, which actually may be okay because when i was listening for was i did not want for pregnant women to be excluded from the group that could receive the vaccine. and what i mean is that, pregnant women were not initially included in the phase-three trial. so we really don't know about the safety for pregnant and postpartum and breastfeeding women. the issue, though, is that we have 31,000 healthcare workers who are pregnant or postpartum. and women who got pregnant during the trials but were not

initially included as such, we still don't really know. but at the same time, you don't want to be excluding pregnant women from the benefits of the trial. so, you may have, for example, an icu nurse, a respiratory therapist, who is at very high risk. and i was hoping that the fda committee was not going to say don't allow pregnant women to have this choice because ideally, that should be a decision that she makes, between her and her doctor, which is, incidentally, what the society for maternal and fetal medicine has recommended. >> do you know, if you were pregnant, whether -- whether you would take it, or not? >> see, it's really tough. and i think this is why it needs to be tailored to the individual circumstance. if you are a woman, who can very easily keep social distancing. you can work from home. you don't need to be around others who have high risk. then, you should not be taking this vaccine because, in that case, the risks of the -- the unknown risks of the vaccine may outweigh the benefit. but, on the other hand, if you are in a very high-risk profession, and you would, otherwise, have high risk.

for example, maybe you have obesity and diabetes and, otherwise, at risk of severe effects, maybe you do in that case. >> can you explain what the vaccine does and does not do in terms of immunity and in terms of transmission? because that seems like a big question. >> it really is because, anderson, what we know about this vaccine is the primary endpoint is it measures what it -- it -- it measures reducing symptomatic illness. meaning, that it prevents you from getting severely ill. it prevents you from having symptom symptoms of coronavirus which is really important because ultimately, that's what we want. to prevent someone from getting so ill that they are hospitalized or die from coronavirus. but what we do not know is whether it prevents you from contracting covid-19, in the first place. maybe, you could still catch coronavirus, you could be an asymptomatic carrier, and still transmit it to others. so, it's really important for people to know even after they get the vaccine, they should

still be wearing a mask. they should still be social distancing. they may be protected, themselves. but maybe, they can still transmit it to others. >> how -- when will we know if somebody actually -- if the vaccine enables somebody to actually resist getting infected? i mean, is that -- i assume, they don't do experiments where people have the vaccine are purposely infected. >> right. and so, that's something that we'll know, only by observation, over time. and that is one of the things that's going to be studied. but so many other things need to be studied, too. including, about allergic reactions, including children. so, i think we should see this emergency authorization as the first of many steps but a really important step because there are 2,000, 3,000 people, dying, every day. and so, there is going to be a massive, societal benefit from getting this vaccine out very quickly, too. >> dr. wen, appreciate it. new numbers tonight. joining us for that, chris murray. dr. murray, your new model shows

that a half million americans may die from covid by april 1st. actually, down just slightly from last week. though, obviously, still catastrophic. what accounts for the slight decrease? >> well, we're seeing, anderson, is this leveling off of hospitalizations and cases, in -- in a whole number of midwestern states. and at the same time, the -- california's shooting up. oregon. washington. new york. new jersey. and a number of other places, going up. so, that level -- leveling off in the midwest has brought our forecast down. and then, the other thing that's brought it down is that the news from the fda filing by pfizer, that just after one dose of the vaccine, you get 50% protection. and so, that moves up the benefits of the scaleup of vaccine. >> and today, obviously, was, as dr. wen was saying, a huge day

when it comes to the vaccine. factors people receiving it. i ask you this, almost every time. but how many lives would be saved, if, you know, more people wear masks? >> well, 56,000 could be saved, if we could get mask use up. you know, we've been making progress on masks. we're up to about 72% for the nation. >> oh, really? that high? >> if we get up to 95%, we can save 56,000 lives. >> it's at 72%. that's high. i think, at times, when you and i have talked over the last eight, nine months or so, it was in the 45% range at some times. >> yeah. which is really good news. [ inaudible ]. >> hey, dr. murray. i'm so -- yeah, dr. murray, i'm

sorry. the audio, obviously, is cutting out. we appreciate dr. murray's time. coming up next. the president wants credit for the vaccine. the question is what does trump country really think about it? introducing fidelity income planning. we look at what you've saved, what you'll need, and help you build a flexible plan for cash flow that lasts, even when you're not working, so you can go from saving... to living. ♪ let's go

so you can go from saving... to living. damom, look!get sare you okay?? head home this holiday with the one you love. visit your local mercedes-benz dealer today for exceptional lease and financing offers at the mercedes-benz winter event.

as the nation appears, on the verge, tonight, of launching its first coronavirus vac secin rural tennessee, where a local pastor is not only against vaccinations. he is also denying the existence of the very pandemic, itself. cnn's ellie reeve has the story. >> reporter: news of imminent vaccines, comes just as covid-19 surges through rural parts of the country. and the political debate is as heated, as ever. we wanted to know if the same resistance to masks, would happen to the vaccine. so, we reached out to greg locke, a pastor in conservative, wilson county, tennessee. he says he's grown his congregation by protesting covid-control measures. >> we are not going to close our church, ladies and gentlemen. >> a lot of people doing their

best to put out a vaccine but that doesn't mean i am going to take it. i don't believe the government can tell me when or how i can stick a needle in my arms or my kids' arms. >> reporter: locke said he moved his services outdoors not to limit the spread of covid but to handle all the new people who have come. >> i'm saying the sickness is real. i'm saying the pandemic is not. >> i don't understand what you mean when you say pandemic's not real. >> pandemic is not real. >> but what do you think a pandemic is? >> not -- not covid-19. >> but, what do you think a pandemic is? >> it's ridiculous. >> well, why can't you answer it? >> covid-19 is not a pandemic. >> what is a pandemic, then? >> not what we're experiencing. i'm 44 years old. we've not had one in my lifetime. >> reporter: to be clear, a pandemic is a disease that spreads across many countries

and affects many people. experts say about 70% of people need to get the vaccine, to control covid spread. >> it's not been tested enough. we don't know what's going to happen with it. later on. it may help you now, but in the future, it may cause harm to your body. >> it's not -- anti-vaccination, you know, personally, it's a choice. >> reporter: some people at the service told us they had seen locke on facebook, and liked his message. >> donald trump won the election by a landslide. he will be re-elected as the president of the united states. >> reporter: we wanted to know how widespread his views are, so we drove deeper into wilson county where there is a covid-testing site at the fairgrounds. we met a farmer who runs the agricultural center there. >> y'all never go to a fairgrounds where anybody is as proud of the bathroom as i am.

>> i'm cautious about doing anything. i think it's going to be kind of everybody waiting around, and watching the first responders and the nursing-home folks, you know, if there's any reaction to it. let me tell you what my daddy always told me. son, don't never believe anything you hear and only half what you see. >> i think it's entirely human to be a little skeptical, and a little hesitant. after all, this is a new virus in the human population. this vaccine uses new technology. it's been developed, very rapidly. and that makes people cautious. >> reporter: based on our interviews and recent polling, pastor locke represents an outspoken minority. surveys by the pew research center found republicans are less likely than democrats to see covid as a major threat to public health. but also, that there is a growing acceptance of the vaccine, nationwide, including, among republicans. 60% of americans say they'd take it. and nearly half of those who are

reluctant say it's possible they'd get it, after others do so. dr. william schaffner, who's been working on infectious disease at vanderbilt university, since the '60s, says public health officials have to build trust. >> you have to respect people. you have to respect where they're coming from. hear what they say, and then try to respond to their concerns. >> you know, we give shots to cows, all the time. and you do get reactions to shots. so, you know, we have give a shot to an animal, and walk out there 20 feet out of the chute, and drop dead. everybody's going to respond differently. >> after the first responders take it, when it's your turn, will you take the vaccine? >> i -- i probably will go on and take the vaccine. >> how do you feel about the vaccine? >> anything new, that has not been proven, not sure i want to be the guinea pig, you know? and i really wish there was time for more testing but there's not and we're losing too many

people, too fast. so, we have got to do what we can. i know it's become a political issue, at times. but it shouldn't be. this is a health issue. >> the approach to covid has had substantial, political overtones. people have attitudes about this. and it will not be easy to change those attitudes. >> are you going to tell the members of your congregation not to get the vaccine? >> members of my congregation can do what they want to. but they'll watch my videos, and know that i'm not getting it. >> so, you expect them to model your behavior? >> i expect them to use their bible, and use their brain. >> reporter: ellie reeve, cnn, wilson county, tennessee. >> our next guest can speak to the second of those two items. he spent a career working to understand, and then defeat, infectious disease, especially, hiv-aids. william haseltine. professor haseltine, thanks for being with us. great to see you again. you hear people talk about not getting a vaccine. can you just talk about what

that would mean for everybody, if a sizeable chunk of the population does not get it? >> well, what we're hoping from a vaccine, of course, is that, not only it protects the people who are vaccinated but, it stamps out the virus because it can't jump from one person to another because there's not enough uninfected people to get to. and that virus, then, will, pretty much, tamp down, at least for a while. that's what we are hoping for. that's about 70 to 80% but there are a lot of variables. i'd say the best way to look at this is to say if we're going to get the kind of immunity we need, we need to do two things. we need to control the infection, through public-health measures, masks, social distancing, limitations on travel and gatherings. together, with a vaccine. now, h now, how many people need to be protected depends on how big the infection is. it's like a forest fire. how many firefighters you need, depends on how big the fire is. the more people are infected like there are in the united

states, the longer and harder it's going to be to get herd immunity. to get immunity that makes this virus really tamp down. >> and given that we don't even know if somebody who gets the vaccine, if that makes them -- makes it impossible for them to get infected. or if it just makes the symptoms so little that it -- it's -- it's manageable. if -- if can still get infected and can still spread it, then even with a vaccine, the idea of herd immunity. i mean, that -- it doesn't really -- >> it's a complicated question, anderson, because the polio vaccine doesn't, necessarily, stop polio. it's just very good at stopping people getting sick. and that has really eliminated polio, pretty much. the flu vaccines don't stop people from spreading the flu. but they have some effect on modulating the flu. so, there's really a whole series of factors. does it stop transmission? how long does a vaccine last? what fraction of people get

infected? and how long is their immunity? those are questions that are going to get answered. but we don't know those answers, now. so, the best strategy forward is to get as many people vaccinated as possible. and to observe as many public-health measures, as possible. and there's another, very big question. if as much as 20 to 30 people -- percent of people -- decide not to take the vaccine, adults, then it's going to be up to children. and you have to remember that those children can't take a vaccine, unless their parents tell them it's okay to take the vaccine. until they give permission. so, we will need, probably, because certainly, i think it's very likely, 20% of people will resist. we need to begin to test whether that vaccine works in children, that do spread the disease to adults. and that's going to take even longer. so, i think the bottom line of this is we need both public health measures, we need vaccination measures. and even together, given the magnitude of this pandemic, it's

going to take a long time to get this thing back in the bottle. >> professor haseltine, appreciate your time. next, we have more breaking news. more americans facing end of unemployment benefits, at the end of this month. coming up, i will speak with senator bernie sanders about why he is dmaemanding a vote on new stimulus checks. [ fizz ] joining meeting. [ coughing ] [ gasping ] skip to cold relief fast with alka seltzer plus severe power fast fizz. dissolves quickly, instantly ready to start working. ♪ oh, what a relief it is so fast.

as the pfizer vaccine moves closer to reality, there is breaking news, tonight, out of capitol hill about the negotiatio negotiations for relief. senator bernie sanders is demanding a vote on a proposal for a second round of stimulus checks. he joins me now. senator sanders, thanks for being with us. are you willing to let the government shut down, if you don't see movement on stimulus checks? i know you and senator hally, are introducing to that effect. >> i think it would be simply unacceptable, for members of congress to go home to their families when tens of millions of working-class families in this country, don't have the

food to feed their kids, they are worried about being evicted, they can't afford healthcare, they have no income. we have got to address that, and i intend to do everything i can to make sure that we do. >> would shutting down the government, though, would it -- i mean, would it get anything? would it -- >> anderson, nobody wants to shut down the government. but, i think the american people want their government to respond to the terrible crises that they are facing, today. and you just can't walk away from that. so, no one wants to shut down the government, but the government is going to have to respond. we are in an emergency situation. and it would be absolutely reckless and irresponsible to ignore the pain that so many people are feeling. you know, i always get amazed, anderson, when wars come about, we have trillions of dollars to spend on wars. we have trillions of dollars to give away in corporate welfare, tax breaks to billionaires, large corporations.

but, when it comes to the children of this country going hungry, working people facing eviction. suddenly, we just can't act. that's unacceptable. that is unacceptable. and if it means that my colleagues and i don't leave washington, during the christmas break. and nobody wants to get out of here more than but i think that's what we have to look at. we've got to act. >> how did stimulus negotiations get this bad. here we are in december. why can't people with good intentions on both sides get it done? >> that's a good question. maybe the answer up to this point is at least there are not good intentions on both sides. let me give you an example. mnuchin, the president's representative, talked to the democrats and talked about a $1.8 trillion package, which would have included what i want to see, what senator hawley wants to see, and that is $1,200 of direct payments for working-class adults, each working-class adult, and $500

for the kids. that's what we did in the c.a.r.e.s. act. now suddenly, literally we are talking about instead of $1.8 trillion, we're talking about $350 billion in new money and about $500 billion to be transferred from unused money in the c.a.r.e.s. package. so in other words what the republican leadership is saying is, you know, we're just going to put a very little amount of money into the needs of the american people right now. that is unacceptable, and democrats are going to have to stand up and demand that we address the crises facing this country. >> senate majority leader mitch mcconnell's office today indicated he doesn't see a path to the agreement on the two main sticking points, liability protections -- is there room on your end for negotiation on those? >> well, this whole liability thing is a horror show. it's incredible to me that when you have corporations who have been absolutely irresponsible in the meatpacking industry, other industries, and amazon, 20,000

workers, as i understand it, have come down with the virus, that they will be held immune from any liability. and that, to me, is absurd. states and cities are in desperate shape. their financial revenue is going down. their tax revenue is going down. they need help. you know, what i just don't understand is that back in march, in the beginning of this terrible pandemic, congress came together, and people forget this. unanimously, democrats, republicans, president trump -- we passed a $2.2 trillion c.a.r.e.s. act, which included that $1,200 per person that i'm fighting for, the $500 for the kid, $600 supplement for unemployment insurance. we passed it, and you know what it? it was just enormously important to millions and millions in this country. bedid it then. and today, tragically as you report every day, the virus situation is worse probably right now than it has ever been. so if we could act unanimously

with the president in march, i'm not quite sure why we can't do it today. >> just lastly, i just got to ask you about where this country is in terms of the president leaving and what the president is alleging. the texas attorney general along with 18 other republican state attorneys general, who theoretically know law, are asking the supreme court to essentially overturn the election. the president has asked ted cruz to make the case for him if it goes to oral arguments. i guess cruz is thinking it's never going to go, so say yes. that's where the benefit is. what's going on? >> thank you, anderson. i think you understand a little bit about the complexity of where we are right here in the senate. let us be very, very clear that trump happens, among his many, many deficiencies being a pathological liar and a racist, et cetera, he also happens not

to believe in democracy. and the fact that you have so many republicans at all levels -- you have the majority of my colleagues here have not yet acknowledged that biden won the election. he's what, 6 million, 7 million popular votes ahead. he has the same electoral votes that trump had four years ago, and trump called it a landslide. they haven't even acknowledged biden's victory. so what we are about right now are people who are trying to undermine american democracy, the will of the people, an election. it really is extraordinary. and the day after biden gets inaugurated, we're going to roll up our sleeves and figure out how we strengthen american democracy because it is very much under attack right now. >> senator bernie sanders, i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you. up next, the day in perspective. deep loss tempered by real hope in the fight against the coronavirus. we'll be right back.

if you have moderate to severe psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis, little things can become your big moment. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. 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. >>oh my gosh you made it! ♪ did you put some ah, kale in the greens? ♪ we didn't forget about you! welcome to the family. thank you. wooooow. ♪

♪ experience the power of sanctuary at the lincoln wish list sales event. sign and drive off in a new lincoln with zero down, zero due at signing, and a complimentary first month's payment.

. . . i had hiv, it was difficult for . . . . . . me to accept. i decided . . . . . . hiv doesn't define me. my name's dimitri. and i'm on biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment . . . . . . used for hiv in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill . . . . . . biktarvy fights hiv to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low . . . . . . it cannot be measured by a lab test. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a build-up of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your doctor about all the medicines and supplements you take, . . . . . . if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b, do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your doctor. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. if you're living with hiv . . . . . . keep loving who you are. and ask your doctor if biktarvy is right for you.

updating our breaking news on the pandemic, a sense of hope coupled with the reality of such deep loss. more than 2,500 deaths reported so far today, and there are still several hours left in this day. more people will die. that's in addition to a record 3,100 deaths just yesterday. the cdc director warning today we will likely see more than 3,000 deaths per day, more than we had on 9/11, for the next two to three months. think about that. also tonight, a record number of people hospitalized battling the coronavirus right now. more than 107,000 patients.

to any who are in their rooms watching tonight, we wish you strength and a quick recovery. but, again, there's at least a glimpse of how this will end. there is hope out there. the vote today to recommend emergency use authorization for pfizer's covid-19 vaccine. the fda is expected to support that decision soon along with the cdc advisory committee on sunday. that certainly cannot come soon enough. a reminder don't miss full circle, our digital news show. we continue to spend a lot of time focused on the pandemic on it. you can watch full circle streaming live 6:00 p.m. eastern at cnn.com/full circle or watch it on the cnn app anytime on demand. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." >> coop, thank you very much. i am chris cuomo, and welcome to "prime time." first happy hanukkah to my jewish brothers and sisters. i am your extended family, and i wish you a beautiful start to the festival of