this sunday, a political earthquake. democrat doug jones' win over roy moore in alabama changes the political calculus for 2018. >> we have come so far, and the people of alabama have spoken. >> republicans may be relieved that roy moore is gone -- >> i'm really, really happy with what happened for all of us. >> -- but democrats suddenly sense the possibility of taking back both the house and the senate. >> i think that the energy going into 2018 has already begun. >> my guest this morning, democratic senator joe manchin of west virginia and republican governor john kasich of ohio. plus, our brand-new nbc news/"wall street journal" poll out this morning, and it suggests democrats may be right, that a wave is coming. we'll bring you all the numbers.

and republicans get the votes to pass their tax bill. >> this is going to be one of the great gifts to the middle-income people of this country. >> but can they keep their promise that the tax cuts may for themselves? and who gets hurt if they don't? i'll ask the white house director of legislative affairs, mark short. joining me for insight and analysis are syndicated columnist george will, helene cooper of the "the new york times," al cardenas, former head of the american conservative union, and former obama deputy campaign manager stephanie cutter. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history. this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. if you have the sense that history may be repeating itself, you're not alone. back in 2010, there was a president with sinking approval ratings, an unpopular piece of legislation, obamacare,

supported by just one party, and a republican, scott brown, won a senate race in cobalt blue massachusetts, suggesting a huge republican wave was coming. well, it was. republicans won 63 house seats in 2010 and 6 senate seats. today we have a president with sinking approval ratings, an unpopular piece of legislation, the tax bill, supported by just one party, and a democrat, doug jones, won a senate race in ruby red alabama. democrats are hoping to catch a wave and sit on top of the political world. in our brand-new nbc news/"wall street journal" poll, it suggests that the surf's up. when asked who they would prefer to control congress, 50% said democrats, just 39% said republicans. you have to understand, our poll doesn't show this very often, this kind of spread. it was the first time the democrats have been at 50% in our poll with a double-digit lead since september 2008, before the obama-led democratic wave of that year. the enthusiasm is all with the democrats as well. 59% of democrats tell us that

they have a high level of interest in next year's elections compared to just 49% for republicans. as for president trump, his approval rating stands at 41% in our poll, versus 56% who say they disapprove of his performance. that's slightly better for him than two months ago, when the results were 38%/58%. still that 41% is lower than any other president has scored in our poll at this stage of the presidency. and a year out from the 2018 midterms, the democrats do have reason to be optimistic. >> the people of alabama have spoken. they have said we -- [ cheers and applause ] >> a stunning democratic victory in a deep red state is the latest evidence that it may be time for republicans to panic. challenged by the president to vote for roy moore -- >> get out and vote for roy moore. >> -- many republicans stayed home. and in a state which elected mr. trump last year with 62% of the vote, just 48% of voters

this year said they approved of the president. >> they run, you know, as a party of trump and moore, that's, like i said, that's not a winning combination in 2018. >> democrats see a wave of enthusiasm heading into 2018. >> i think that the energy going into 2018 has already begun. >> reporter: african-american voters were highly motivated on tuesday, making up a higher share of the electorate than in 2012. the last time president obama was on the ballot. plus, the cultural revolution on the issue of sexual harassment and assault did not skip over alabama, contributing to a 16-point advantage for doug jones with women, powered by 98% support among african-american women. and alabama once again exposed the deep divisions between the republican party's establishment and populist wings. >> i know we're supposed to cheer for our side of the aisle, if you will, but i'm really, really happy with what happened. >> republicans blame roy moore. >> this is a rebuke of a

candidate. >> we had a blemished candidate. >> we had a flawed candidate. >> alabamans didn't want somebody who dated 14-year-old girls. >> but despite moore's obvious flaws, democrats are sounding confident. >> the republican brand, even in deep red alabama, is positively toxic. >> one challenge for the party, within base voters are enthusiastic about impeachment, and democrats risk overplaying their hand. you don't think impeachment should be the primary message of the democratic party in 2018? >> no, i do not. >> democrats are defending 26 senate seats next year compared with just 8 for republicans. ten of those democratic seats are in states mr. trump won, including five where he won by at least 18 points, but democrats just won a senate seat in a state he carried by 28 points, and the party is becoming extraordinarily confident about its chances in the house. >> i think we're going to win the senate and the house. >> joining me now is one of those red state democrats that

is on the ballot in 2018, senator joe manchin of west virginia. senator manchin, welcome back to the show, sir. >> thanks for having me, chuck. >> let me start with this. you are representing a state that president trump won by 40 points. you're up for re-election in 2018. does doug jones -- >> 43 points, to be exact. >> there you go. does doug jones' victory in alabama, does that give you more confidence, or does that tell you, well, if i get to run against roy moore, i can win? >> well, i feel good in my state. i've been in my state all my life, born and raised here, and i've been in public office for quite some time in different capacities, most recently as governor before u.s. senator. so, i think the people know me. my brand is very independent, and my brand is all about west virginia. and you have to be, whether you're a democrat or republican, you have to be who you are for the state you represent, and i think people know that i'm going to put west virginia and my country ahead of my party. >> what should chuck schumer and

nancy pelosi take away from this? they're the titular heads of your party right now on both the house and the senate. what lesson do you want them to take away from doug jones in alabama? >> well, let me just talk about washington democrats, which i'm not one -- i am not a washington democrat. i am a west virginia democrat. and i believe that doug jones is an alabamian democrat. washington democrats have to understand, we're a little bit different. we do, and we are very much concerned about the social issues that have divided, and it seems like the democrats have abandoned, but we're going to stay true to our roots and who we are. and as long as they understand that and leave us alone, let us do our job here, we're going to be just fine. when we go to washington, it's not whether chuck schumer, who i am the world of, a good guy and a nice person and a good friend of mine, but still, yet, chuck knows i'm going to be voting for west virginia. he accepts that.

he understands that. and he knows exactly who i am. and the people in west virginia know who i am, so that's really what it's about, and that's what doug jones needs to do. >> look, you're not the only politician i've run into who says whoa, whoa, whoa, i'm not going to be sign of the national party. people know in my state and will judge me in my state, but you know politics are national these days, more than this the used to be. let me ask you this about the national message. there's a lot of base democrats that are fired up about the idea of impeaching president trump. you have 58 house democrats vote for that idea. you have a billionaire donor to the party who may want to run for the u.s. senate talking about the idea. do you think that that is good or bad for your chances at re-election in 2018, if impeachment is one of the national messages of the democratic party? >> here's the thing, chuck, that really bothers me more than anything. because i am up for re-election

in 2018, i guess people think in washington that i'm going to vote differently or i'll be differently or i'll have to cowtail, if you will, to what they think might be popular. i don't think impeachment is something we should be talking about. if facts come out, if these investigations go down that line, and if the rule of law is exercised and we see that there is reason to go in that direction, the house will make that decision first before it's given to the senate, so i'm not going to waste my time or energy on that. i think it's futile at this point in time. there's so much that needs to be done for this country, for our military to be strong and defend us and for a tax reform, not just a tax cut, that works for all americans. >> let me pick up on two points you just brought up. one, quickly, is the investigation. you're on the senate intel committee. i know you're part of that investigation. >> right. >> one of your colleagues, senator roy blunt, he said the following about the bob mueller issues right now. "i am dhaernd he couldn't put a team together that wasn't so

overwhelmingly on one side of the ideological spectrum. but maybe even somebody as capable and experienced as mueller can learn a lesson from this." do you believe mueller's investigation has been compromised, pure and simple? >> not -- i do not at all believe that mr. mueller's has been compromised, or his investigation. i think he's beyond reproach. i think anybody who's ever worked with him, who have watched him operate for the last how many years, under democrats and republicans, they even asked him to stay on after the bush administration. i think that he is the person, the right person, that when he finishes his investigation, that we're going to have confidence it was done in a fair and balanced way. i truly believe that, and i'm not led to believe that anybody on the intelligence committee thinks that he would not be the right person, there's anybody better than him. >> have you been troubled at all of what you've seen come out of the selective leaking of these texts that have come out of the justice department regarding these fbi agents?

>> yeah, that bothers you, but these are human beings, too, i understand on both sides, but the bottom line is that mr. mueller got rid of the people immediately as soon as he was made aware of them, and that's not going to impede his investigation, and i think in a fair and unbiased way. >> let me pick up on taxes. it was interesting to me that you said you wanted to work on tax reform instead of just tax cuts. i take it that's a little subtle jab at this tax bill. you didn't vote for it, but you also claimed this is not the bill president trump wanted. that's not what he's saying. he seems to be really excited about this bill. how did you get cut out of this? i think a lot of us expected you to be more involved in this process. >> i wanted to be more involved. first of all, i thanked the president for inviting me to the white house. i was there for lunch. i was there for a dinner. we spoke about really reform, such as what ronald reagan did in the 1986. it was total reform. or what erskine bowles and al

simpson recommended in bowles/simpson. that was reform. and the president told me, joe, this will not be a tax cut for the rich like me. and i said, mr. president, that's good. he said it's going to be for the average working person who's got left behind. i said, that's great! well, i really believed that the president wanted to work in a bibipartisan way. mark short and i have been talking. we exchanged ideas back and forth. i gave them a whole litany of things that i thought ten or more democrats would vote for, to have it 60 or 65 votes. i really believe is possible if you had regular order. once mitch mcconnell has decided that 51 votes was all that was needed and they're all going to be republicans and make it political, that's exactly what happened. >> all right, so let me clarify this -- >> this is not a reform. this is a tax cut. >> let me clarify, you don't hold the president responsible for this, you hold mitch mcconnell responsible for this tax bill? >> i think mitch mcconnell basically told the president, we can do this under a budget

reconciliation, which is a budget gimmick. he passed a budget with $500 billion of deficit going in. so, he had $1.5 trillion of deficit to work with and giveaways tax cuts and everything else, rather than revenue-neutral, which is what ronald reagan did, which is what bowles and simpson did, which is what i wanted to do and many republicans kind of wanted to do, i thought, but that's not what we ended up with. and chuck, the only thing about it, when you look in '86, ronald reagan did it and did it in a way that everyone was involved and got bipartisan support. >> right. >> george bush number one had to pay the price for that, because he saw that we had an exploding debt that wasn't supposed to have happened, but it did, and he had to make adjustments for our country, which he did and sacrificed his own political career and re-election as president. this is what we're dealing with. and i'm saying, anybody that would have gone, chuck, to the all-member hearing that we had last thursday, the thursday before, and heard the readiness of our military, the need that they have, and can vote with a

clear conscience this is the right thing for america, our children and our country -- >> all right. >> -- they were at a different meeting than i was at. >> senator manchin, unfortunately, i've got leave it there, democrat from west virginia. thanks for coming on. appreciate you sharing your views. >> well, thank you. appreciate it. >> you got it. joining me now is republican governor john kasich of ohio. governor kasich, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thanks, chuck. >> all right, i will start where i ended there with senator manch manchin, which is on the tax bill. >> right. >> but i'd like you to answer the question from the point of view of a governor who's got your own fiscal issues to deal with. is this tax bill good for the state of ohio? >> yeah, i think -- chuck, here's what's in that bill. and i know this has been characterized in many different ways that i don't happen to agree with. look, the corporate tax rate in our country was way too high, one of the highest in the world. we needed to bring that down so that companies are going to invest in america and not invest overseas. secondly, they have a provision

in there -- i don't know all the details of it -- that if you made money overseas, you can bring your money back here. you're going to be able to repatriate that money, which means that's more money, hopefully, for investment. small businesses are given a break, something i did in ohio, which is why we're up about 500,000 jobs here in the state since i've been governor. look, do i think they could have done better for the middle class? i do. do i think they could have done better for the working poor? i mean, rubio tried to get something. he made some progress. but they could have, you know, increased the rates a little bit for big business. it wouldn't have mattered a little bit, and given more relief out, so -- >> why do you think they didn't? why do you think they didn't? is it the lack of inclusion of democrats in there and a lack of need for compromise? >> well, yeah, let me say what manchin said is true, because i was there in 1986. it wasn't just ronald reagan, it was senator bradley, it was senat senator pacuin.

it was a special time in 1986 because ronald reagan was special, too. and it was tough. in the end, because they made drastic changes in the code, and i remember the real estate industry went crazy, the democrat and republican senators stood on the edge of the cliff and just like butch cassidy and the sundance kid, they held hands and they jumped. and you know what, we got great progress. we got a cleaned-up code and lower rates. but remember, at that point in time, the top rate was 70%. it's not that today. but look, i do believe that cutting taxes makes sense. my concern about this bill is the debt. >> yep. >> and they did not do enough to be able to cover -- this bill's not going to pay for itself. everybody knows that. so, at the end, chuck, here's the problem, is debt gets higher and higher and higher, it slows the economy down. so when you cut taxes to provide more economic growth and at the same time, you drive up the debt, they kind of work in opposite of one another -- >> and you don't get the -- >> -- and that's why they have to look at the savings. >> you don't wind up getting the surge you once hoped for.

i want to talk about the state of the republican party, but also the state of your relationship with the republican party. here's montage of various things you've said this year about your relationship with this version of the republican party -- >> merry christmas! >> exactly. >> can you offer yourself as an alternative as a third-party candidate? >> very -- chris, i'm not doing anything now to plan, other than to have an organization -- >> at what point do you think you won't be able to change your party? >> i never give up, chuck. if the party can't be fixed, jake, then i'm not going to be able to support the party, period. >> well, here we are in december. >> yeah. >> is the party in a better place than it was at the start of this year or in a worse place, and where are you? are you prouder to be a republican today than you were at the start of this year? >> well, i'm always proud to be a republican, but the party is my vehicle, never been my master. chuck, when you look at alabama, there's some very interesting things. 20,000 -- they think 20,000 republicans voted for somebody that wasn't on the ballot.

i would also say senator shelby, he spoke out and said he was not for the candidate down there. in other words, we're beginning to see more of a tug-of-war pulling people towards a better position on the party. that's my sense. and in terms of -- so, i'm kind of optimistic with some of the things, but here's the thing, two paths. there are some in the party that look at problems, and they're negative and they're angry and they're small, and there's other people that look at the problems and say we can fix them. so, instead of losing the future, which is what we're doing today, turning off millennials. let me just give you an example. can you explain to me why the republican party that's a majority in the house and the senate with a republican president don't tell the d.r.e.a.m.ers, the daca kids that they're going to be able to stay in the united states? that makes no sense. and the idea that they were just going to get rid of obamacare, which needs to be reformed, and then people were going to lose their health insurance, what are they thinking? and they need to do something to make sure that program doesn't go away. they need reform it and shore it

up. immigration. what are you, kidding? i mean, immigrants have helped our country. trade. we're not antitrade. and the millennials believe we have a global place in the world and we're losing them, chuck. but look, i keep thinking, i look at alabama, and i say people are not happy with us being small, angry, and narrow. they're starting to say no. that means that those of us who believe in a positive party are beginning to win, but we have a long way to go. >> let me ask you this, you had some optimism about the president when you met with him in february this year. you said you were optimistic that he listened to you, listened to your concerns at the time, at the time in particular focused on health care and the concerns you had about it. i've got to ask you, what is your relationship today? when's the last time you and the president have spoken? and are you optimistic about his presidency still? >> well, first of all, i haven't spoken to him for a very long time. i think he called me during the health care debate in the house, and i told him at the time i couldn't support the bill, and that is the last time i've

spoken to him. but see, chuck, what i'm trying to do is lead by what's happening in my state, which is, you know, we're up jobs, we've got money in the bank, we're taking -- we're making sure people at the bottom get help and they're not ignored. so, we have a policy here, we've got a problem, we're going to go and fix it. we dealt with race. we're now beginning to deal with the problem of gun violence. we don't turn -- we don't put our heads in the sand. we look at problems and we look for positive solutions. and that's my message to the national party. that's my message to anybody at the white house that wants to listen. and look, chuck, i think being open, being positive, being pro growth and solving problems for the future and stop thinking of what the heck's happened in the past. move on, because if they don't do it, we're going to lose a lot of elections. >> very quickly, i have a quick foreign policy question for you. senator lindsey graham said this about the chances of the u.s. resorting to a military response against north korea. he said, and he appeared to be sort of channeling the president here -- "i would say there's a three in ten chance we use the military option. if the north koreans conduct an

additional test of a nuclear bomb, their seventh, i would say 70%." country ready for the idea -- >> no, no. >> -- that we may be headed for a military confrontation? >> in the beginning, i think the president by putting pressure on north korea was doing the right thing, but this is -- it's getting carried away in bluster and threats and throwing around the fact that we're going to be engaged in some kind of a war that could involve nuclear weapons or result in the death of millions of people, i just, i think is just not right and i don't think it's correct foreign policy. here's what i do believe. i don't believe we have put the sanctions on across the board, including those things that would affect chinese banks, those things that would require that you cannot have a global transformation of dollars called the swift program or the ability to insure ships that travel. the fact is, the united states needs to put together, chuck, a coalition, the same way we did with iran, to put the kind of pressure on both the chinese and the koreans.

we have not done that, regardless of what they say, we haven't done it. you need to squeeze them. >> i'm going to leave it there, but as you know, i don't think this president is very into the iran example either, governor. >> well, that's what brought them to the table, chuck. maybe the deal was flawed, okay, but it got them to the table, because the pressure that was put on them economically severe. it's the same kind of pressure across the board that you'd put on north korea that will affect chinese banks. now chuck, i've got to tell you, i had a christmas party last night and somebody said what are you doing tomorrow? i said what am i doing tomorrow? well, tomorrow's sunday, isn't it? and therefore, it's "meet the press." >> there it is. how better way to end it right there? governor kasich, merry christmas. >> happy holidays! god bless. >> all right. appreciate it. >> thank you. when we come back, much more on the changing political landscape and why democrats now think they do have a real chance of capturing the house, and now, thanks to doug jones, the senate as well. ♪ (music plays throughout) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[ keyboard clacking ] [ click ] [ keyboard clacking ] [ clacking continues ] good questions lead to good answers. our advisors can help you find both. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. yours. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future.

this ♪s electricity. this is a power plant. this is tim barckholtz. that's me! this is something he is researching at exxonmobil: using fuel cells to capture carbon emissions at power plants. this is the potential. reducing co2 emissions by up to 90%... while also producing more power. this could be big. energy lives here.

welcome back. panel is with us, syndicated columnist george will, helene cooper of "the new york times," former obama campaign manager stephanie cutter and head of the american conservative union, al cardenas. welcome, all. the republican party. i want to read you something, george, and give you the first start here. this is what michael gerson wrote, "this is the sad logic of republican politics today -- the only way that elected republicans will abandon trump is if they see it in their self-interest, and the only way they will believe it is in their self-interesting is to watch a considerable amount of their fellow republicans lose," that's the summary of the post analysis alabama. what say you? >> self-interest is broken out in american politics. >> are you shocked? >> who knew? yes. i think that's right. i think these people are having trouble trying to find out how to balance the fact that he does, in fact, set the tone of the party and that a substantial

portion of the base is still furiously enthusiastic about him, and therefore, they have to navigate this. it does help that he and his echo, mr. bannon, failed in alabama, but with an extraordinarily flawed candidate. they came very close. >> let me look, i'm going to put up here, al, the various missed opportunities, thanks to essentially flawed candidates for the republican party. you have the infamous 2010 trio of angle, buck, and o'donnell. nevada, colorado, i'm not a witch. and the 2012 duo on their weird beliefs about the issue of race, richard mourdock in indiana, akin of missouri, and now roy moore. that's six successes they've handed the democrats. >> no doubt. flawed candidates have been too much a part of our history in the primary and that's why i'm for open primaries. i think when you narrow the field to voters in particular

states at a particular time, you don't come up with a best possible candidate, but that's for another day. look, i'm a lot more worried about the election results in virginia than i am in alabama. alabama, the candidate was an anomaly, just like the ones you cited. in virginia, we had a great candidate, i thought, and ed gillespie's a superb candidate, and we lost there, but we lost down field. and those state, senate and house losses of good people worry me a lot. >> alabama. how much do you take away from it for the democrats? >> well, i think if alabama were in isolation, then you would have to look at it based on the flawed candidacy, but it's not an isolation. it is the latest in the trend that we've been seeing all year. special elections, even in very deep red states, democrats might not be taking all of them, but the margins that they are making up in very deep red districts are significant. add that to virginia, alabama, what's happening all over the country. republicans are having a hard time recruiting people to run. these are all signs that something is happening, so

alabama is not an isolated incident. there are very deep, troubling signs for the republican party coming up. >> i want to show more from that generic ballot we just released, 11-point lead for the democrats. let me take you inside the numbers on who should control congress. those ages 18 to 34 prefer democrats by 48 points, 69%-21%, that's not a misprint. women favor democrats to control congress by 20, independents by 12. these are landslide numbers among those demographics. >> they really are, but at the same time, i think it's important for us to remember, particularly when you look at the alabama election, that close to 600,000 people still voted for an incredibly flawed candidate, which says that at one level, the republicans have a deep base that's not going to go anywhere. so they're starting from this certain percentage, and they have nowhere, you know, that puts them in a better position out of the starting gate. that said, you know, you're right, i think we're absolutely

looking at another case of, you know, what happened in 2010 with, where sort of in 2009 you saw the scott brown and martha coakley massachusetts special election give way to the wave and the blowback against president obama, and you are starting to see something that looks like that now. >> democrats are well positioned to pick up seats in nevada and arizona. they in the last week or so got a very strong candidate who's run statewide in tennessee twice, a popular ex-governor. and the democrats who should be in trouble in red states carried by enormous margins by trump in north dakota and montana, for example, are not in trouble. >> ever since eisenhower, the party in the white house has lost seats in congress and state legislatures, with the exception of ronald reagan during his first term. all the conditions that we see now indicate that. and so, the question really is are we going to lose majorities or not, but it's hard to see not

losing some seats. >> there's a second question, also, and that is, is the country better off, do we have better government, if congress is divided? and i think it is. >> yes. >> stephanie, i noticed a little pattern here of these candidates that democrats have had some success with, ralph northam, doug jones, phil murphy, even jon ossoff. i guess charitably i'll call them bland, meaning, you know, they're not fire-breathers on the left. is that something democrats ought to very quietly be looking for, is very sort of just nonthreatening-type, moderate-style candidates, even if they're not moderate in their ideolo ideology? >> i actually think what senator manchin said was what democrats need to do, and i think chuck schumer keeps this front of mind all the time, that the candidates need to fit the state or fit the district, and that's what you saw with northam, that's what you saw with jones, that's what you saw with ossoff, except for the fact he didn't live there. >> that was a problem. >> that was a problem.

and these guys fit the states, and they run -- you know, jones ran as an alabamian. >> but don't forget, it's the democratic base that is getting them over the line. >> right. >> it's the hard, true blue democrats, it's the black voters. these are the people that are getting these suddenly come turning out at the polls, and they're the ones who are drawing -- >> the most fascinating thing is the theme. what are we going to run on, the personalities or getting things done, problem-solving? i think there's a growing caucus in the house and in the senate, the senate led by joe manchin and susan collins, of problem-solvers, people getting sick and tired of gridlock, and we'll see what that brings. >> and not ideological, which is what people are looking sgrorks but she brings up the basis, do want that anyway, that's tension. we'll discuss that later in the show. when we come back, if the new tax bill is so good for the middle class, as so many middle class, as so many republicans ronoh really?g's going on at schwab. thank you clients? well jd power did just rank them

highest in investor satisfaction with full service brokerage firms... again. and online equity trades are only $4.95... i mean you can't have low cost and be full service. it's impossible. it's like having your cake and eating it too. ask your broker if they offer award-winning full service and low costs. how am i going to explain this? if you don't like their answer, ask again at schwab. schwab, a modern approach to wealth management. i've always been a morning person. it's when i ponder the deep questions, like which came first, the egg? or the chicken? how would i know? but i do know that first, qualcomm connected the phone to the internet. and now, everyone is posting and scrolling and sharing everything. yessir. qualcomm invents, then the world innovates on top of their breakthroughs. invention comes first. and a whole lot of it starts at qualcomm.

what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪ bp's natural gas teams use smart app technology to share data from any well instantly. so they can analyze trends and stop potential problems in their tracks. because safety is never being satisfied and always working to be better. ♪ traders -- they're always looking for advantages. the smart ones look to fidelity to find them.

we give you research and data-visualization tools to help identify potential opportunities. so, you can do it this way... or get everything you need to help capture investment ideas and make smarter trading decisions with fidelity for just $4.95 per online u.s. equity trade. fidelity. open an account today. ♪ welcome back. republicans are hoping to pass their tax cut bill this week and give president trump a chance to sign the bill into law before christmas. the bill does this -- it lowers the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. it lowers the top individual rate from 39.6% to 37%, and as

an added bonus to those at the top, it raises the income level where that rate kicks in. but the bill also nearly doubles the standard deductions for taxpayers who do not itemize, potentially a big help for lower and moderate-income households, and it doubles the child tax credit. also, there were a number of changes in the final days that restored or expanded popular deductions, like those for student loans and for medical expenses. still, some economists say this bill is heavily tilted in favor of the wealthy, and most americans seem to agree with that assessment. 65% said that, according to a quinnipiac poll out this week, and that perception could become a big challenge for the republicans in 2018. joining me now is the white house director of legislative affairs, mark short. mr. short, welcome back to the show, sir. >> chuck, thank for having me back. >> i'm going to play for you a list of promises the president made when it came to taxes and discuss them with you after you hear it. here it is. >> at the center of our plan is massive tax relief for the american middle class.

going to have three brackets, instead of seven. we're doing a major, major, major simplification. and we're going to make it nice and simple, and we're getting rid of carried interest. all of this does not add to our debt or our deficit. in other words, it's going to cost me a fortune. >> all right, none of those things are true right now. we can debate the middle class aspect in a minute. i know that is -- that i can see. but we're still at seven brackets, no more tax simplification. we still have the carried interest issue, which is something he vowed to get rid of multiple times as a candidate. and by the way, he does personally benefit from every analysis on this, and there is a hit on the debt. what do you say to those broken promises that candidate donald trump made on taxes? >> chuck, there are many deliveries here in the bill that the president made promises on. one, it does simplify the tax code. some of the things you're not talk being is it eliminates oil and gas production credits. it also eliminates many deductions that families and businesses were taking, such as

specifically lobbying expenses. it's helping drain the swamp. there are promises he made that he's delivering on. there are certain things here that made it impossible to work around every single one of those. but what's most important is we've lowered the corporate rate from 35% to 21% to bring jocbs back to our country, a signature accomplishment in the bill. he is delivering tax relief for families across the country. for a single mom exg $40,000 a year with two children, she gets a $1,400 tax benefit. for the family of four earning $70,000, a get a $2,000 tax benefit. he delivered on his promise to take care of middle-income families as well as tax relief. there are several elements we simplified. we didn't get everything we wanted. it's part of the compromise here you have to work it. >> it's interesting that you led with the single accomplishment here you think is on the corporate side of things. you made that permanent. the middle class relief that you described is not permanent. and in fact, in order to stay within the rules, it keeps

creeping up when they expire. and i know you believe that a future congress won't have the guts to let it expire, but that's -- why subject individual americans to that cliff and not corporate snerk. >> it's a fair question, chuck, but here's the reality, is that we would love to have the individual side permanent, too. the reality is that corporations need to make investments years in advance to know what's going to happen, as opposed to numbers continuing to gyrate. so you're giving them assurances as to where we're going to be ten years out so they can make long-term investments in our country. the budget reconciliation rules in the senate are somewhat arcane and make it difficult to do both. if we could get the individual side permanent, we would love to do that and we will continue to work to do so. >> if right what joe manchin said, if you opened up a bipartisan door, you could have done real reform, instead of just a tax cut? >> it is real reform, the most significant since 1986. i sat in joe manchin's office many evenings trying to find a path forward to make it

bipartisan. i'm sorry he continues to torture himself by staying in the party of chuck schumer and elizabeth warren. we think there were ways he could have helped us out, but we couldn't find enough democratic senators to get us above the threshold, therefore we go the budget reconciliation route because this is important to the economy and the american people. >> talk being 2018, speaker ryan said he wants entitlement reform to be a focus of 2018. here's what the president promised on the campaign trail about entitlements. >> save medicare, medicaid, and social security without cuts. have to do it. get rid of the fraud. get rid of the waste and abuse, but save it. >> will that campaign promise be held by the president, no matter what speaker ryan proposes? >> yes, that campaign promise will be held. >> no cuts. no way anybody will interpret any reform of medicare as a cut, he'll veto it? >> keep in mind, what we tried to do when we tried to repeal obamacare would have had the

single greatest entitlement reform in medicaid to make sure the program was preserved. it's an unsustainable path, so the president does not want -- >> the president didn't want to do any cuts there, but you did do cuts in medicaid. >> because he was trying to protect the program. right now it's on an unsustainable path that will not last. >> without cuts. so that is a pledge he can't keep. >> on medicaid, he's looked to make sure the program was preserved for future generations. >> all right, i've got to ask you about the alabama special election, what you said to me a month ago about this race. >> there is nothing more important than the notion of child pedophilia, chuck. that's the reality. >> alabamans agreed with you, but the president didn't. why? >> well, the president felt as his responsibility to the party, he is the standard bearer of the party, he's who the party chose, but he recognized that roy moore was a deeply flawed candidate and the day after, the president called doug jones and congratulated him on a well-run campaign and said i look forward to working with you when you get here. we frankly hope doug jones will help us change the climate in washington where we can actually begin to work in a bipartisan

manner. the question is will doug jones work to represent the people of alabama or side with chuck schumer and lelizabeth warren o their agenda. >> if you knew the president was going to support roy moore, would you have voted for him? >> those sendments were heartfelt. >> let me ask you about the news overnight. i know there is a lawyer for the trump transition, trump for america, that says that bob mueller's investigation got the transition e-mails, ptt.gov is how all those e-mail addresses end, and got those government-issued, or government-used e-mails unlawfully. mueller's office says that's not true. a statement this morning -- "we have obtained e-mails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner's consent or appropriate criminal process," implying, perhaps, that there was a subpoena to gsa. do you believe these were unlawfully gotten? >> chuck, thankfully, i'm not in communication with the transition lawyer for the trump team. the reality is that this administration has complied in every single possible way with the special counsel.

taxpayers have spent millions and millions of dollars on this investigation that has not yet proven any sense of collusion with the russians. i think the american people are ready to turn the page. >> okay, but is the president going to continue to cooperate or is he -- >> he is continuing to cooperate. >> is he setting the stage for firing bob mueller? >> no! no, there's no -- >> there's no way he's going to fire him? is. >> there is no conversation about that whatsoever in the white house, chuck. >> none whatsoever. >> you guys keep bringing that up. we have continued to cooperate in every possible way with that investigation. >> all right. marc short, we'll leave it there. appreciate it. thanks for coming on, sharing your views. >> chuck, thanks for having me. when we come back, the republican defeat in alabama on tuesday was a lot more about roy moore, and why that s ♪when sundown pales the sky i want to hide a while behind your smile ah, but i may as well try and catch the wind♪ our mission is to make off-shore wind

one of the principle new sources of energy. not every bank is willing to get involved in a "first of its kind" project. citi saw the promise of clean energy. we're polluting the air less. businesses and homes can rely on a steady source of power. this will be the first of many off-shore wind farms in the u.s. ♪for standing in your heart is where i want to be and long to be ah, but i may as well try and catch the wind♪

money managers are pretty much the same. all but while some push high commission investment products, fisher investments avoids them. some advisers have hidden and layered fees. fisher investments never does. and while some advisers are happy to earn commissions from you whether you do well or not,

fisher investments fees are structured so we do better when you do better. maybe that's why most of our clients come from other money managers. fisher investments. clearly better money management. welcome back. "data download" time. republicans are very quick to point out roy moore's many flaws as a candidate and want to call his loss in alabama simply an outlier. but alabama is another example of a bigger issue for the gop -- a retreat from the suburbs. let me explain. in the five counties where the most votes were cast, places with the big suburban populations, republican roy moore took a beating.

he lost these counties in total by 24 percentage points. compare that to how republican senator richard shelby did in his race a year earlier. he won those same counties by 9 percentage points. of course, he had the advantage of incumbency and it was a presidential turnout. still a striking swing. in 2017, you could see the beginnings of this suburban tide rolling in off-year races across the country. this was apparent in the governors' races last month in new jersey and virginia. in new jersey, the top five counties gave democrat phil murphy an 11-point edge. the same counties went republican for chris christie by 23 points four years earlier. in virginia, the advantage was 23 points for the democrat, ralph northam. in 2013, those same counties gave the democrat only a 10-point edge. even in places where republicans won special elections in 2017, there were signs of suburban erosion, and that infamous georgia six special, "suburban

atlanta," republican karen handel eked out a four-point win, but in november 2016, the margin for that suburban house seat was 23 points. similar story in the kansas fourth district, which includes the suburbs around wichita. republican ron estes won his special election by six points. the year before, the seat went republican by a whopping 31 points. but what else do these places have in common? the data showed nearly all of these suburban communities also had trouble supporting president trump in 2016. he did far worse than average, republicans, in most of these same counties. if this problem in the suburbs persists for the gop, it's going to be difficult for the party to hang on to seats all across levels of government, whether we're talking in places around phoenix, nashville, dallas, you name the urban community. when we come back, the latest on the russia investigation and republican efforts to delegitimize robert mueller. >> announcer: coming up, "end game" and "postgame," brought to you by boeing, continuing our

mission to connect, protect, xlorks and inspire. keyboard clacking ] [ mouse clicks, keyboard clacking ] [ mouse clicking ] [ keyboard clacking ] [ mouse clicking ] [ keyboard clacking ] ♪ good questions lead to good answers. our advisors can help you find both. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. yours. talk to one today and see why we're bullish on the future. at bp, everyone on an offshore rig depends on one another. that's why entire teams train together in simulators, to know exactly what to do before they have to do it. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. another day at the office. why do you put up with it? believe it or not you actually like what you do. even love it. and today, you can do things you never could before.

you're working in millions of places at once with iot sensors. analyzing social data on the cloud to create new designs. and using blockchain to help prevent fraud. so get back to it and do the best work of your life. so we know how to cover almost almoanything.hingfraud. even a swing set standoff. and we covered it, july first, twenty-fifteen. talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

>> announcer: "end game," brought to you by boeing. continuing our mission to connect, protect, explore and inspire. back now with "end game." all right, this tax bill, al, is

it going to be all that what ails the gop for 2018? >> you know what, i don't know how we take a lot of mileage out of it. as a big believer in the corporate tax reduction, we've got to be competitive globally, we've got to bring back taxes from abroad. those are not sexy political issues. when it comes to -- we've got a long ways to go to convince the american voters that this was good for them. it doesn't seem like the polling numbers are headed in that direction, but we're betting the farm for 2018 on that, so we've got a long ways to go. >> george, i know you want to respond to something marc short said. >> he said first of all it's the best simplification since 1986, which is like saying it's the tallest building in topeka. they took the tax code and made it more complicated. now the question is will republicans reform entitlements? the tax code enriches the entitlement menu by doubling the child tax credit and making $1,400 of it refundable, which

means a check goes out to people who don't pay taxes. lowering the corporate tax rate. the proper rate for corporate taxation is zero, because we don't know who pays them. economists argue about whether it comes out of employees' wages, shareholders, passed on to customers. if you don't know who's paying a tax, don't have that tax. reduce it to 21%. it's a great thing to do, but any company that was paying 35% needed to fire its lawyers and accountan accountants. the fact is, most companies are paying on average about 28% anyway. so, the whole thing here is, they said pass this thing, we will get 3% annual growth. they get that, everyone will forget their complaints about the tax code. >> stephanie, can you run against this tax bill -- >> sure. >> -- as effectively as you claim now, when people, at least temporarily, feel like they're getting a couple bucks back? >> a couple of bucks, compared to what the people at the top 1% of the income chain are getting or corporations. look, i am not saying that

corporations don't need a tax cut, but there's a way to do it and pay for it. and there's a way to reform the tax code and make it a little bit more fair. that is not what they've done here. throwing some money for the child -- you know, a couple of dollars for the child care tax credit, people absolutely need that, and that's how you get money in the economy, but 60% of the benefits of this bill go to the top 1%, and they're asking the people at the bottom of the chain to pay for it. that is -- we've seen this movie before. this is nothing new. this will be -- [ inaudible ] well, you're not paying for it. >> no, it's going to -- >> there are people, right, which means our kids are going to be paying for it. >> exactly. >> and we all are going to be paying for it in some way because to pay for this debt, we have to cut somewhere. >> all right, quickly, i want to pivot to the mueller investigation. it seems as if again this week more house republicans making the case that the process they believe is rigged, that the process is rigged. and even this morning the lawyer, everything is questioning the process that mueller is using.

the only thing i keep looking at here, though, as far as the president's concerned is they don't have any exculpatory facts. >> one thing you didn't add is also president trump saying he's not ready to talk about pardoning michael flynn yet, which is another thing in adds to sort of the layers of the attacks on this mueller investigation. it feels a lot like gaslighting right now, and i don't know that this is actually going to help. i don't think it helps. it seems very -- it seems enormously transparent what's been happening, and robert mueller just comes to the table with so much innate credibility because him that i don't see how this can fly. >> i don't know, this ground work looks like it's softened up on the right here a little bit, george. >> it is astonishing ma that a man of mueller's experience and intelligence would not be more careful than he was in hiring

these people who had records that were vulnerable to this. those of us who have argued for decades that independent counsels are a bad idea because it represents a failure of confidence in existing institutions and because a lawyer with one case tends to become ahab looking for his white whale are rather enjoying this. >> well, here's the thing, all of that is true. what isn't escapable is the fact that there's been -- there have been charges against paul manafort. no one argues that they seem right. there's been two members of the administration who have pled guilty already with competent counsel. and so, when they say, well, this thing's taking too long, well, what are you talk being? the last person who pled guilty pled guilty a month ago. and so, in spite of what one might say, it seems like their product, meaning the indictments or pleading guilty, have been on point, and nobody's argued those. so, the arguing about closing this up while these charges are

taking place to me is reckless. and the last part is, boy, we're undermining the basic institutions of our country. >> unfortunately, i have to end that conversation here. but finally, we were reminded this week of george carlin's famous routine, seven words you can't say on tv, when we learned that the trump administration has come up with its own list of seven words you can't say at the cdc. that's right, there are seven words or phrases that the centers for disease control is being told it should not use when it asks for its budget approval from congress. now, we're not going to put up a graphic with all the words, but clearly, this is not science-based. to be fair, the cdc has no entitlement to use any particular words, and we assume there's a diversity of opinion on this ruling. after all, there is evidence-based disagreement over the viability of a fetus, and we're all aware of the emotional debate over transgender americans that has played out in recent years. but anyone who has observed

totalitarian regimes knows how vulnerable we can be to government overreach. that's all for today. thanks for watching. we'll be back next week, because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." >> announcer: you can see more "end game" in "post game" sponsored by boeing on the "meet the press" facebook page.

part by barracuda networks, cloud-connected security and storage solutions that simplify it. scott mcgrew: this week, a political activist searches for a twitter user who may not exist. andy weir, author of "the martian," is back with a new book. and a job interview where you bring your spouse. thoughtspot's ajeet singh will explain why. our reporters, jon swartz now with barron's, and heather somerville of reuters this week on "press:here." ♪ scott: good morning, everyone, i'm scott mcgrew. i appreciate all of you watching, but i really have one person in mind this morning, amy mek. good morning, amy. how are you? amy has a twitter account, there she is. she posts largely anti-islamic messages and she tweets a lot,