this sunday, holding court. anthony kennedy steps down from the supreme court. president trump is ready. >> we have a very excellent list of great talented, highly educated, highly intelligent, hopefully tremendous people. >> the makings of a conservative court with little chance to stop it. >> women's access to safe, legal abortion, on the line. >> they want republicans to delay the vote again until after the election. >> our republican colleagues in the senate should follow the rule they set in 2016. >> but republican leader, mitch mcconnell says, not this time. >> we will vote to confirm justice kennedy's successor this

fall. >> can democrats stop president trump or will he shape the court for a generation? my guest this morning, republican senator lindsey graham, and democratic senator, maria cantwell. a toppled house leader, a sign of a changing democratic party. al al alexandria ocasio-cortez is here this morning. and president trump says there is no longer a threat from north korea, but north korea is increasing its production of nuclear fuel post-summit. is the u.s. being deceived again by another north korean leader? joining me for analysis is halle jackson, democratic pollster, cornell belcher, and kimberly atkins. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press."

good sunday morning. happy july. the announced retirement of supreme court justice ant ahony kennedy this week helps make one political reality clear. president trump is winning, and the democrats right now are reeling. the supreme court, mr. trump is about to shape the court for a generation by choosing a possible tie-breaking conservative justice, and he has already filled the lower courts with like-minded conservatives. how about the republican party? the president's approval rating among republicans is around 90%. elected republicans fear criticizing him, and the party has become a cult of personality, his. how about fake news? mr. trump has turned that phrase, which initially referred to the phony russia generation to support his story, to

discredit reporting. if we faithfully fact check the president, we risk being considered biased. either way, mr. trump wins. the mueller investigation. the president has succeeded in convincing millions that the investigation is biased, despite trafficking an innuendo without evidence. the economy is doing well, but it was doing well before he took office. with unemployment doing well, and much of trump's success is superficial. while he is more popular among republicans, the party overall is shrinking. his trade war, and north korea, all could turn against him. if the democrats' reaction this week to the kennedy retirement proved anything, it's that the democratic party has not figured out how to succeed in the trump era. >> you know, we democrats are a big tent. >> reporter: the supreme court fight has exposed the party in

opposition to the president, but divided over goals, messaging and tactics. >> i think we will have a plan and it will be announced by the democratic leader at an appropriate time. >> reporter: but it's not clear what that plan is. democrats with 20/20 ambitions, eager to win progressive support, are promising the base of fight. >> don't tell me that this battle is one that's already lost. i do not believe that. >> this is a fight that is born out of love of country, and we're not going to let anyone take our flag. we will fight today. we will fight tomorrow. >> reporter: but the senate's democratic leaders are reluctant to give them that fight. >> the notion that we can stop them with 49 votes is just not in the cards. >> reporter: minority leader chuck schumer is stuck on a procedural argument. in 2016, democrats ridiculed senator mitch mcconnell's maneuver to deny obama appointee, merrick garland, a vote before the election. now they are adopting the same

argument. >> our republican colleagues in the senate should follow the rule they set in 2016, not to consider a supreme court justice in an election year. >> meanwhile, three red state democrats who voted for neil gorsuch are up for election in states mr. trump won, and they met with the president this week. >> i had a great conversation. >> reporter: in a house, defeat of joe crowley by a rising star, left democrats with no obvious heir to nancy pelosi, and the calls for pelosi to step aside for a new generation of leaders have grown louder. quizzed on that point, pelosi fought back. >> what's your problem. >> reporter: the stakes for democrats could not be higher. kennedy's retirement sets in motion the biggest change on the court in half a century. >> almost without exception, if it was a critical, ideological, hot button issue, it was up to

him. >> reporter: the trump travel ban being voted on this week, where he sided with the court's conservatives, to even same-sex and abortion, where he sided with the court's liberals. trump said he won't ask candidates on how they would vote. >> people say, you don't do that. you shouldn't do that, but i'm putting conservative people on. >> reporter: when he was asked whether he'll ask the court to overturn roe -- >> that will happen immediately because i'm putting pro-life justices on the court. >> joining me is maria cantwell, and lindsey graham of south carolina. we'll begin now with senator cantwell out in washington state. welcome back to "meet the press". >> good morning. >> let me start with the basic question here. help me out. where do you sit? it feels as if senate democrats in general, have all sorts of ideas on how to handle this supreme court fight. what is yours?

>> well, this is a very different supreme court discussion because everyone in the united states senate who is going to vote on this knows that it will change the balance of power. so you're not just voting on whether you think trump should have his nominee. you're voting on whether that nominee is going to change precedent when it comes to a whole host of issues of the women's right to choose, your access to health care, whether if you have diabetes or asthma. all of a sudden, a preexisting condition is no longer allowed and you have to pay more for insurance. so i think that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that this vote could be a -- one of the key votes of their entire career, and they know that no matter what comes out of the white house, if they vote for somebody who is going to change precedent, it could be a career-ending move. >> okay. that's fine to say that in the

aftermath, but the numbers are the numbers right? we know what the numbers are in the senate, and their majority decides this. it sounds like you want to defeat this nominee for sure or inspire president trump to pick a moderate? >> i would love for. president trump to pick someone who shows the views. we have an independent judiciary in tines of intense political debate. we have a judiciary that will uphold the law is what's so great about our country. if he wants to throw an extreme conservative who basically says i'm not going to follow precedent and follow these laws, then yes. that, to me, is a major change and something the president should be sitting down with moderates on that advise and consent and say, what would be

good for america? >> but the reality is i think we know where this is headed on a partisan scale considering the president is only looking at nominees pre-vetted by the federal society. so we know he is going to pick some more of a traditional conservative. so i ask you. how do democrats then -- can you defeat this nominee if it comes from that? are you hoping to woo senators murkowski and collins? is that the plan here? >> well, the plan here is to speak out about the change in balance in the courts. you are not just voting as was with gorsuch for one more name. you know that justice kennedy was a swing vote and he was a libertarian, and sometimes he sided with the conservative justices and sometimes he upheld important issues on marriage equality, and issues on the environment. my colleagues in moderate states whether that's democrat or republican, you have to decide,

am i voting for a justice that's going to hold up the clean air act or the clean air act? am i voting for a justice that is really going to hold up roe v. wade or women's rights to have the freedom to do what she wants with her body? these are issues. it won't be about what they say. it will be about whether you really believe that justice given what the president has said he is willing to nominate. he is going to be very -- >> i understand that, but there are some democratic activists who think you will have a confirmation hearing and you won't do whatever it takes to stop any justice that the president nominates if it does come from a conservative era. there was one person quoted -- one activist quoted in the "new york times" saying they would like to see civil disto beobedi in the senate. >> i would love for that to get attention, but i'm anxious so

hear whatever this nominee has to say. is the president able to pardon himself? do you believe in the emoluments clause? that if there is a conflict of interest, the president shouldn't be able to participate. i want to know what he thinks about the process of how far the mueller investigation needs to go, and will they fight to protect that? i'm interested in hearing what kind of nominee is going to be on the bench and if the president is under indictment, what is that nominee going to do about that? so these are monumental questions, and this is a person who wants 40 years on the court or probably 40 years. i want at least 40 minutes to hear what they have to say about these important issues. >> so you would have an easier time i think getting your moderate if the rules of the senate hadn't been changed. i'll play for you a remark that mitch mcconnell made in 2013 when harry reid changed the

rules for lower court nominations. here's what he said. >> my friends on the other side of the aisle, you will regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think. >> do you regret it? >> well, we're dealing with what we're dealing with today, and i doubt that whatever the circumstances of the rules were then or now, that they would be preceding on this with 51 votes. the issue is there are so many things before the american people, and this position will change the balance of the court. the president has the right to nominate somebody as he said. >> but senator, you had an attempt -- you want to just ignore that. i disagree with you. you want to ignore that path. that is why we are in this situation now where a bare majority decides to future the court. >> it's what we're dealing with today, and i'm not ignoring it. i have been around my state this weekend, and people are anxious about health care. they are anxious about the

detention of people who are seeking asylum in the united states. they want to know what is going to happen with this court nominee. they are so anxious that the rights bestowed upon americans will be rolled back. they want to know what we're going to do about it, and what i want to make perfectly clear is that this is not a normal supreme court justice vote. you know for sure that your vote is changing the balance, and i want all my colleagues to have the time to take that is not a rushed process to know whether this nominee is going to uphold those american rights or not. that is what we deserve to know. >> what is the definition of a rushed process? do you think this should be delayed until after the election or we should know before the election where people stand on this? >> well, i am sure that the president is in a hurry because he has already said he is going to make a decision by july 9 poith. >> right. >> and what i would say about

the advise and consent role, i would sit down with the moderates and say, what kind of justice do we need in the united states with this process to make sure that basic rights are upheld? >> do you want it delayed? >> they're going to skip that. >> do you want it delayed until after the election or not? >> well, i would love that because i want to make sure that we have enough time and that the issues are discussed and that we have our rights first. that's what i would like. >> all right. senator cantwell, i have to leave it there. thank you for coming on and sharing your views. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> yesterday, i spoke with senator lindsey graham when he was in turkey in the middle east, and i began asking him what kind of supreme court justice he is looking for. a strict constructionist like anthony scalia, or john roberts or someone more of a libertarian a centerist like anthony kennedy? >> conservative, not crazy. a solid, john roberts type myself. i'm not picking. president trump ran on the idea of what he would pick, a conservative judge, and he gave

us a list. i would expect the name would come from that list. the people on that list are kwiely qualified. >> what will come up at the confirmation hearing is the issue of abortion. overturning roe v. wade was said to happen autoically because his pick for the supreme court would all be pro-life. do you view that connection as automatic? that means you're for overturning roe v. wade and that should be how the public assumes when they hear of a supreme court justice a potential being pro-life? >> well, i'm pro-life and the job of a judge is to decide cases before the court, but one of the concepts that means a lot in america is you don't overturn precedent unless there is a good reason, and i would tell my pro-life friends, you can be pro-life and conservative, and

also believe in roe v. wade, and it has been affirmed over the years. i would hope the justice that sits on the court, all of them would listen to the arguments on both sides before they decide it, but this is a well known concept in our law. >> that's important to you. are you going to vote for somebody that doesn't believe in that? >> i won't believe in anybody that tells me they will decide a case before the facts are presented to them. i don't expect a judge to say, i will overturn roe v. wade or not listen to an argument about abortion. i have a bill that says a baby can feel pain at 20 weeks during the birthing process, 20 weeks post-conception and there is a state interest to protect the child from an abortion. that's a nfl issue that has never been decided under roe. i hope the justices -- this one and all of them, will listen to the aren'guments before they decide. >> the president may have to rule on the issues having to do

with the mueller investigation, and neil gorsuch didn't come up. he came up before there was a robert mueller special counsel. now he exists. do you believe this nominee needs to commit to recusing hip or herself or anything having to do with the mueller probe directly if it makes its way to the supreme court? especially one has said flatout they don't believe a president should be susceptible to a lawsuit while in office. >> i was a lawyer before i was a politician. to recuse yourself is proper in some cases. elena kagan recused herself from cases and you can't review your own homework, but the idea that you can't judge somebody who picks you is probably not a ground for recusal. you have to show there is a connection between the case at hand and the activity of the judge. it makes perfect sense to me that jeff sessions can't oversee an investigation of the campaign he was apart of, but i wouldn't have a broad rule that you can't, you know, review anything

against president trump because he chose you. >> there may be instances where you might think a recusal is appropriate under having to do with this investigation? >> yes. >> so where would that line -- >> it depends what the facts are. i don't know. i don't know who he is going to pick, and, you know, i think whoever he will pick will be asked about the connections to the trump campaign, pending litigation, any conflicts of interest. a conflict of interest in the law is different than just, you know, again, you can't judge anything trump did because he chose you. that's not a conflict of interest under the law. we'll see where this goes. >> we'll move to your topic, foreign policy. i'll get you started with north korea. we'll hear from nbc reporting u.s. intelligence agencies believe that the north korean regime is cheating on the commitment kim jong-un made to president trump, and they have

apparently stepped up production of enriched uranium. is this deal already headed to failu failure? >> that's a good question, chuck. if it is true, they are saying one thing and doing another. nobody should be surprised, but here's what i would tell north korea. there is no place for donald trump to kick the can down the road. you met with him in person. he is offering you a deal of a lifetime. i would take it. >> but senator, as you can tell, the president already knows this information. we have learned it and he has been told this information. does it concern you he has yet to act or for instance he hasn't said, the exercises with south korea are back on? >> i just know what i read and i'll follow up when i get back. it would concern me a lot if they are expanding the nuclear program as they meet with the president. i don't want a war with north korea. it would be devastating. a lot of people would be killed and hurt. >> let me move to another summit that's coming up. you were very skeptical when

president obama in 2015 was about to meet with president putin. you were worried, no. he is going to get walked all over, and president obama was there to confront him about crimea and confront him about some of these things. i have to ask you. president trump is already hinting he is ready to get out of syria, that he is ready to hand them crimea. how much concern do you have about this summit? >> i'm glad he is meeting, but i have a lot. it's not obama's fault that crimea was taken by russia. it's russia's fault. it's up to president trump that we don't give russia iran and syria. i'm in turkey today. this is a strategic ally, and we have many problems, but they look at us as an unreliable ally. we have isis in a good spot, but people are worried about leaving syria and giving it to the iranians and the russians. so i'm concerned by what i hear. i'm concerned when the president

tweets, you know, russia denies they meddled in our election when they say they didn't meddle. they are lying, so i'm glad the president is going to confront putin, show him the evidence you have got, mr. president. it's overwhelming. >> you actually think he'll show him the evidence? again, the president is out there tweeting that he believes the russians. you actually expect him to present the evidence that we have that is, like, you don't have it? >> well, here's what i would say. in many ways, this administration has been tough on russia. we have armed the ukraine. we have imposed sanctions. we have kicked out diplomats, but the idea that russia did not meddle in our election is fake news. they did meddle in our election and they are doing it again in 2018. >> one of the messages you have -- you regularly have brought back from the middle east during the obama era was you were concerned that you would say that our allies in the middle east for instance, they don't know if they can count on the united states. can our allies in europe count on the united states right now?

>> yeah. congress is firmly in europe's camp. i think the president is trying to get nato nations to contribute more, but there is no serious effort to get out of nato. i think the president appreciates the alliance. i can't -- i'm not going to be on this show and tell you what he should say or not say. i'm going to judge him by what he does. i like some of the things he has done against russia, but the idea that there is doubt of meddling in our election is not helpful as all. leaving syria means isis will come back. the only thing i can tell president trump for sure is if you leave syria without thinking about the conditions on the ground being the reason that you leave, isis will leave, and if you come back any time soon, you're giving demascus to the iranians. everything you said about obama and iraq, you're going to do in syria. please don't do that. >> by the way, senator graham shared with me this is his first trip to the middle east without his normal traveling companion, john mccain. he said he and his colleague

were going to go out to his favorite hotel bar last night and toast him. you can see the entire interview on meetthepress.com. the panel is next. is this going to be a huge thank you is what we say. but we mean so much more. we mean how can we help? we mean what can we do? we mean it's our turn. to do our part. to serve you, for all you've done to serve us. ♪ ♪ hawaii is in the middle of the pacific ocean. we're the most isolated population on the planet. ♪ hawaii is the first state in the u.s.

to have 100% renewable energy goal. we're a very small electric utility. but, if we don't make this move we're going to have changes in our environment, and have a negative impact to hawaii's economy. ♪ verizon provided us a solution using smart sensors on their network that lets us collect near real time data on our power grid. (colton) this technology is helping us integrate rooftop solar, which is a very important element of getting us to our renewable energy goals. ♪ (shelee) if we can create our own energy, we can take care of this beautiful place that i grew up in. ♪ no one thought much of itm at all.l people said it just made a mess until exxonmobil scientists put it to the test.

they thought someday it could become fuel and power our cars wouldn't that be cool? and that's why exxonmobil scientists think it's not small at all. energy lives here. welcome back. the panel is here. democratic pollster cornell belcher. hallie jackson, kimberly at kins and david brody. all right. david, i want to start with you. this is what michael gerson wrote. as a political matter, however, the fight over kennedy's replacement is a gift to the president. it is a reminder of trump's adherence he made with evangelical christians and other religiously conservative supporters. ignore my bad behavior.

all the kingdoms will be yours. pretty rough way to describe it. michael gerson's been critical of evangelicals and their sort of blind support for president trump over character but is he right? >> well, he's right to a degree and the degree is this. evangelicals voted for this president predominately, especially ones on the fence. not the ones in alabama at the rallies, but the ones that came with their nose held to a degree. they voted for him for the supreme court. here we are. many evangelicals believe, this is shocking to folks, but they believe he is god's chosen candidate for such a time like this. this is the word on the street in the evangelical world. along comes a second supreme court nomination. they're like, well, here you go. we as in evangelicals have a chance to shape this court for a long time. i think it will be interesting in terms of reshaping the court murkowski and collins. everybody talks about the big supreme court fight to come. i think the fight is right now. how is this candidate going to be defined in terms of trump's

mind. how much murkowski and colins and others. >> it is interesting, we did research on abortion among republican senators when kennedy was confirmed in 1988 to today. in 1988, ten republican senators, cornell, called themselves pro-choice when kennedy was confirmed. today it's two. do you buy the idea that this will be the be all end all on roe? >> it is, you know, the dog catching the car. look, be careful what you ask for. i've spent some time in focus groups across the country the last two weeks, right? democrats will likely lose this battle, right, because like you said the numbers just aren't there. there are only so many tactics you can take. elections have consequences. chuck, i've been looking at gallup data over the last two decades and nowhere in this gallup data do i show anywhere approaching a majority of americans think that abortion should be illegal. and god help these old men if

they tick off these suburban women who have never really thought that their reproductive rights were at risk and all of a sudden for -- it's at risk and it's real. >> i thought lindsey graham was trying to send a message to the president when he said, precedent matters. >> settled law. right. >> lindsey's way of saying -- he didn't want the headline "lindsey graham supports roe v. wade" so he started speaking in latin. political latin. i think lindsey graham agrees with cornell. be careful here. >> the president confirmed it on friday he is not going to specifically ask where she's candidates are. he doesn't have to. they wouldn't be on the list if you didn't already know where they stood on that particular issue. one way that i have heard that people close to the president are trying to inoculate against some of that is push him towards picking a woman. the president has said he's leaning towards selecting two women who are on the short list

of maybe five to seven. including amy barrett. as one person put it to me last night, she was dinged by dianne feinstein in her confirmation hearing for the circuit judgeship. there is a calculation that some people close to the president are making. i've also heard the president himself said essentially i'm not going to think about gender politics. i want to pick the best candidate. if that's a man, it's a man. >> kimberly, she's getting to something i think both sides are torn on this. do they want the fight or not? i don't know. i think it's a worthy fight. i'm not sure that democrats want the fight because if you have the fight too harshly, do you blow the democratic red state senators, right? >> republicans aren't sure they need the fight. they think they've already won it. the point that cornell made aside that this could backfire in the polls, i think they already think that they won it. for democrats the fight was in 2016. they missed the fight.

that is when there was a supreme court justice being held up. maybe because merrick garland wasn't the progressive fire brand that stirred them up or they missed a pathologist to donald trump 270, they didn't fight that fight now. now it's too late and they can only message the way we saw senator cantwell do as best she could, but that's all that democrats have right now. >> something that strikes me so much, especially someone who covered the campaign in 2016. you look at the exit poll data and how much that supreme court opening was such an issue for the republicans. >> it was 1 in 5 voters said the court was their number one issue. take a look at what the percentage was. among those voters, 56% were trump voters and only 41% where clinton voters. >> that's the problem that democrats have now. you have groups like demand justice that are mobilizing now because all of a sudden they see that the supreme court is, in

fact, important. you're going to see that number grow for democrats. >> nowhat there is nothing that the democrats can do to stop it. well, look, you were talking about the support of evangelicals, donald trump is term limited. they have him at most for eight years. not just the supreme court but the federal judiciary. it will take a full generation to turn around the court that the judiciary that's being shifted so far to the right -- >> and that's why this is a 40-year decision, is what we're talking about here. i would also say this, very important, amy barrett, as you mentioned. evangelical sources tell me that's the number one pick for them, for sure. amy barrett. beyond that, we know donald trump likes optics. could you imagine roe v. wade, whatever it happens to be, five men on 5-4 decisions, whether it's roe v. wade or something along those lines. it's an optics thing and it bodes well for the president if he cares about optics, and he does, to go with a woman here. >> when he was selecting his

cabinet, there was a lot of talk about optics, would he pick more male candidates or female candidates. this is a president who doesn't like to be told how the optics make him look. he will assess but i'm not sure that is the top motivating factor for him. >> there is a political calculation here. midterms coming up. hey, i picked a supreme court nominee who is a woman. listen to the fake news media saying i'm anti-woman. fake news. think it plays for his base. >> i have to leave it there. but we'll pick up the conversation in a little bit. when we come back, though, meet the woman who may represent here. we perform over 50,000 operations a year in places like this. for the past 15 years, chubb has identified ways that we can strengthen our safety measures. and today, our hospitals have some of the best patient safety records

in the country. now, we're constructing new buildings that will define the future of piedmont and chubb is here, insuring our expansion. two million patients a year depend on us. and we depend on chubb. captured lightning in a bottle. over 260 years later as the nation's leader in energy storage we're ensuring americans have the energy they need, whenever they need it nextera energy. ♪ when i first came to ocean bay, what i saw was despair. i knew something had to be done. hurricane sandy really woke people up, to showing that we need to invest in this community. i knew having the right partner we could turn this place around. it was only one bank that could finance a project this difficult and this large, and that was citi.

preserving affordable housing preserves communities. so we are doing their kitchens and their flooring and their lobbies and the grounds. and the beautification of their homes, giving them pride in where they live, will make this a thriving community once again. ♪ captured lightning in a bottle. over 260 years later as the nation's leader in energy storage we're ensuring americans have the energy they need, whenever they need it nextera energy.

welcome back. that sound you may have heard on tuesday night was the sound of a political earthquake in new york city that was really felt more so in washington. alexandria ocasio-cortez, a 28-year-old political neo fight seems to come out of nowhere to defeat joe crowley. he was not just anyone, he's currently the fourth ranking democrat in the house, the party boss of queens and seen by many as the next speaker of the house if the democrats won the majority. well, no more. a giant win for the progressive wing of the party. but as my colleague steve kornacki put it, as shocking as her victory was, the more you look at the changing face of the democratic party, the more you wonder why didn't all of us see this coming? well, alexandria ocasio-cortez joins me now. congratulations. >> thank you. thank you for having me. >> you're not a congresswoman-elect yet, you have a general election but it is a pretty strongly democratic seat. let me first start with something that nancy pelosi said about your victory earlier this week. take a listen.

>> they made a choice in one district. so let's not get yourself carried away as an expert on dem grams and all that within the caucus or outside the caucus. it is not to be viewed as something that stands for everything else. >> she was a bit defensive. a lot of people coming at her saying your victory means a lot more than just a primary win in the bronx. how did you react to that? >> well, i think that there are a lot of districts in this country that are like new york 14, you know, with -- that have changed a lot in the last 20 years and whose representation has not. and it's not to say whether someone should be voted out or voted in, but i think it definitely speaks to us perhaps evolving in our messaging in at least how we do things. so i think that, you know, i do think that there are a lot of districts in america that are like new york 14. >> i'm curious, if joe crowley found out you were thinking about running and called you up and said, what am i doing wrong,

you know, what would you like to see from me, what would you like to see me do to make you say, you know what, i'll stand this cycle and see what you do? >> what would i say to that? >> what would you say to him if he asked to advice on how to win your vote before you decided to run against him? >> i think the problem is that that never happened. the fact that that is not happening. >> meaning you never saw him in your mind? that the district never saw him, is that what you're saying? >> well, i think -- without going too hard, you know, the congressman has had phenomenal service in our community. i think there was certainly a lack of presence. that was a big part of my win. it was -- there was, i think, a lack of listening on the ground, the lack of going to the grocery store and saying, hey, how are you doing? that is an important part of representation because we have a lot of work we have to do here in d.c., but that work needs to be rooted in the communities that we have been elected to represent. >> some of your energy and some of the energy behind you and

some of the energy behind other progressives has to do with almost the tone and tactics of the democratic leadership. i'm curious, what was your reaction to senator cantwell earlier today and how she described how she would like to fight on the supreme court opening? >> well, i think that what's going on is that there -- especially with the supreme court we have senators and folks trying to figure out the strategy, but in the meantime, the messaging isn't as clear to the communities that we're trying to represent. are we fighting or not? and i still don't have quite a -- >> what do you want to see? >> you know, for me, i'm a fighter. i'm always one for a fight. especially when we see what the gop has done. i feel like they're kind of gaslighting the country. when they want to fight, when they want to bend and break the rules and stretch the constitution to its limits, they'll do it, but when they're on the other side of the table it's, whoa, decorum. >> do you want democrats to borrow some of those tactics?

>> well -- >> because that's the tricky game here, right? >> yeah. >> which is, you know, do two wrongs make a right. >> i do see the point you're making, the consistency point. i think from my point of view, i look at it more like soccer. what are our positions right now? this supreme court seat is extremely serious. we have a president. there is a federal investigation going on with direct implications to the presidency and that presidency is talking about nominating a supreme court pick that is going to essentially hear this case out. this is a very unusual time in the country. when is the last time that a president has been in this position. >> so what do you want senate democrats to do that you didn't hear from senator cantwell this morning? >> i would like the senate to delay, absolutely. we need to delay until after the midterm elections. that's my personal opinion. and i think that at the very least we need to -- if we are going to -- if this appointment is going to happen at the very least we can do is delay the timeline in which women's health

care is going to be taken away, delay the timeline in which our civil rights could potentially be further eroded. >> let me talk about some of your policy positions but generally. first explain this to me. you were endorsed by a group, the democratic socialists. you have embraced this label. "the new york times" has a headline this morning "millennials embrace socialism." what is your definition of democratic socialist? >> well, for me, again, there is so much focus on this endorsement, but i also think it's important -- an important part of my strategy in winning was building a broad based coalition of people. so while there is a focus on this one aspect of the coalition, and to me, you know, to answer your question, the definition of democratic socialism, to me, again, that in a modern, moral and wealthy society, no american should be too poor to live. that means every working class american in this country should have access to dignified health care. should actually be able to go

see a doctor without going broke. you should be able to send your kids to college and trade school if they so choose. nobody should feel precarious or instable in their access to housing. >> some democrats are afraid of the "s" word. older americans hear socialism and they tie it to ugly governments from europe and the past. >> yeah. >> do you -- how do you -- how do you sell this to an older generation? >> well, i think, you know, as the clip from schumer showed earlier, democrats are a big tent party. i'm not trying to impose an idealogy on all several hundred members of congress, but i do think that, once again, it's not about selling an ism or an ideology or a color, it's about selling our values. >> are you a democratic socialist? is that what you call yourself or you don't want that label? >> i mean, it's part of what i am, it's not all of what i am. i think that's a very important

distinction. i'm an educator. i'm an organizer. and i believe that what we're really seeing is just a movement for health care, housing and education in the united states. >> all right. you defeated a potential future speaker. should nancy pelosi be that next speaker of the house or should it be a new generation? >> you know, once again, i want to see the options on the table. first of all, i'm not even an elected member of congress yet. secondly, we need to see what is going on. think that it's just premature for me to commit to any kind of decision on this. i was just elected on tuesday, chuck. >> fair enough. i'm going to leave it there. alexandria ocasio-cortez, again, congratulations on your primary victory. i imagine we will see you back here again. >> of course. thank you so much. >> thank you. all right. when we come back, why ocasio-cortez's victory may be more of a progressive outlier than a trend this primary season. as we go to break, we want to remember the five staff members who died in thursday's mass shooting at the "capital gazette" newspaper close to us here in annapolis, maryland.

just another day on the farm. or is it? this farmer's morning starts in outer space. where satellites feed infrared images of his land into a system built with ai. he uses watson to analyze his data with millions of weather forecasts from the cloud, and iot sensors down here, for precise monitoring of irrigation. it's a smart way to help increase yields, all before the rest of us get out of bed.

better things than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xeljanz xr is a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough it can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts, and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c,

or are prone to infections. don't let another morning go by without talking to your rheumatologist about xeljanz xr. welcome back. data download time. alexandria ocasio-cortez's win on tuesday gave a lot of hope for progressives trying to remake the democratic party, but if you look at the total landscape, this story is a little different. at this point in the primary season, of the 33 house candidates endorsed by the bernie sanders group our revolution, 14 have won their primaries while 19 have host to the so-called establishment wing of the democratic party. an upstart winning 42% of its races, that's actually not bad. however, what happens when you take a closer look at the districts where the bernie wing is actually winning? only one of those 14 race is rated conservative by our friends at the cook political report. each then the republican

candidate is favored to win. the majority of the bernie wins are coming in safe republican districts like georgia's first and a few are in safe democratic districts where the democrat would win regardless of who won the nomination. think of ocasio-cortez and new york's 14th, for instance. in other words, these are not the districts where control of congress is being decided and not a way to prove that the movement can win over middle of the road voters in swing districts. so what about the districts where the democratic establishment is carrying the day? well guess what, of the 19 districts where establishment candidates have prevailed over surrogate progressives, 11 are rated competitive by cook. these are some of the races democrats have to win if they going to take control of the house in november. so, is the sanders wing of the party having an impact on the democratic party and its politics? sure. progressive candidates in safe districts like ocasio-cortez will likely be serving in congress this time next year and wins do equal momentum for the movement. the left's success is also

certainly being overhyped and fox echo chamber is helping that cause as well. they want to claim to moderate voters, hey, look, the far-left is taking over the democratic party. in places that actually matter in 2018, it's actually been a good year for the so-called democratic establishment. when we come back, end game and the nationwide pr with only a kite, a house key and a wet hemp string, benjamin franklin captured lightening in a bottle. over 260 years later, with a little resourcefulness, ingenuity, and grit, we're not only capturing energy from the sun and wind, we're storing it. as the nation's leader in energy storage, we're ensuring americans have the energy they need, whenever they need it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy. ♪ hawaii is in the middle of the pacific ocean. we're the most isolated population on the planet. ♪

hawaii is the first state in the u.s. to have 100% renewable energy goal. we're a very small electric utility. but, if we don't make this move we're going to have changes in our environment, and have a negative impact to hawaii's economy. ♪ verizon provided us a solution using smart sensors on their network that lets us collect near real time data on our power grid. (colton) this technology is helping us integrate rooftop solar, which is a very important element of getting us to our renewable energy goals. ♪ (shelee) if we can create our own energy, we can take care of this beautiful place that i grew up in. ♪ 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.

back now with end game and the debate over immigration. hundreds of thousands of people in cities across the country turned out to demonstrate against the trump administration's zero tolerance policy, especially the separation of children from their parents at the border. of course the immigration issue is one that both political parties see as a potential advantage for them. the question is, is it for the democrats heading into 2020 or november and what about the republicans? so let's talk about this. cornell, i want to talk about

this movement to get rid of i.c.e. and what this means. here is what the president claims that it means. this is what he said today. i think we have that on tape. >> i hope they keep thinking about it because they're going to get beaten so badly. you get rid of i.c.e., you're going to have a country that you're going to be afraid to walk out of your house. i love that issue if they're going to actually do that. >> and i do already sense a split. the 2020 democrats are all on this program already, cornell. do you see this as a good issue for the democrats? >> i see it broadly as a good issue for democrats because of the optics, right? >> right. >> listen, the pictures of the kids being torn away from their families at the border whether you're a democrat or a republican or middle of the road, those images do not settle well, particularly with women voters, right. again, we're going to have a year of the woman voter that is going to make '92 pale in comparison. overall, the optics don't look

good. i'm not for getting into the policy weeds on this. take it from the standpoint these are bad optics, not our values and not get in the weeds on this argument. >> what you've already seen from the president and administration officials. for every discussion that's up about apoll abolishing i.c.e. they bring out i.c.e. law enforcement officers to talk about their sacrifice and service to the country which is a message that resonates with a lot of people in the country who have a brother or cousin in law enforcement and feel they can relate to this. for the president, this is exact lot what he wants to talk about. >> he's already linked to law enforcement. what's next? >> get rid of police. >> on the democratic side you're seeing this polarization, this push to the left. this is a perfect demonstration -- >> that's my point. don't give it to them. >> the irony is you have people inside of i.c.e. that actually say the thing needs to be reformed. >> yes. >> you have actually messed up -- >> nuance is lost these days. >> i know. nuance is lost.

>> that's true. when you said pushed to the left, and this is the macro version here. look, the democratic party has been pushed to the left. forget socialists for a moment, the democratic party has been pushed to the left and that's why trump got into wisconsin. you can make the case that hillary clinton didn't play in wisconsin, that's fine. you can do that. wisconsin, pennsylvania, the blue collar democrats. donna brazile said that trump picked the locks in that state because we left the door open. that's very important to realize. >> you're going to make my head explode. here is a problem, wisconsin, he didn't win a majority, right? in pennsylvania, he didn't win a majority. >> but he won the state. >> his problem wasn't picking up -- >> hillary clinton didn't win a majority either. >> no, but obama did. that's my point. >> okay. >> the problem is pennsylvania, the problem in wisconsin where a lot of these obama voters who, quite frankly, broke third party, they're a protest vote and the millions who sat home. guess what? how is that not voting for you guys working? it's a problem. his winning in wisconsin and

pennsylvania, quite frankly, against obama was a loss, right? he did not -- he did not go 2 points above what mitt romney did in those states, he coalesced a republican, picked up a couple of points but that should not be a win. >> you cannot discount the fact that blue collar democrats went more to this president than any other republican president before. not just on permit but also it was on personality but it was also because of the leftward shift of the democratic party. >> i can make the same argument that, quite frankly, there are romney/hillary voters, right? and he did a lot worse among college educated white voters than a republican has done in a long, long time. >> i think you're missing my point a little bit. this leftward shift in messaging sort of belies the fact that the democratic party is very, very divided. it's not divided between two different camps, it's divided among multiple camps. >> that's what alexandria was pointing out.

>> you have folks like time ryan trying to talk about the middle class voters and you have the old guard like pelosi and others at the top. there is no overall messaging that is bringing that all together. that's why messages like abolish i.c.e. start catching fire because there is no countermeasure out there from the democrats. >> i hate to be the one to take up for democrats, however, i will say, this is all very, very reminiscent of a lot of conversation we heard in 2008, the old versus the new guard. look, where are democrats on the major policies? you know, minimum wage increase, majority of americans are there, right? she ran on -- cortez ran on people over the money. that's a winning strategy left, right -- that's a middle of the road winning strategy right now. i don't -- and this bernie movement, is it really a movement? if you look at -- >> that was the quote of our daily download. >> is it really a movement? i don't see it. >> i'm here to report from the front lines. this whole idea of make america great again. i'm telling you, in democrats,

independents and, yes, republican households it has resonated because democrats culturally, you mentioned minimum wage. that's fine. that's a cultural issue. i'm talking about culturally, socially, they've moved to the left. >> on what? >> on abortion, for sure. on same-sex marriage. i can go on and on. >> but on abortion, you're the outlier on abortion. nowhere is there a majority of americans who want abortion outlawed. >> well, just real quick, i don't think there is an outlier on abortion when the polls show it's very evenly split. >> i got gallup right here -- >> when it comes to -- we're going to leave it there. i got to go. unfortunately, i got to go. but a majority have said they want to keep roe for what it's worth. before we go, i want to share this e-mail we got from a florida viewer. he and 22 of his friends are going to be purchasing online subscriptions to the "capital gazette." that's their way of honoring what happened in annapolis. that's an honorable goal.

support your free press at home. that's a good idea. buy a subscription to your local paper. that's all

baby, it is hot outside. extreme temperatures sweeping much of the nation, impacting millions. advise medics -- >> a horrific scene over the weekend, a stabbing involving multiple children at a 3-year-old's party. president trump returns to washington to face stiff tariffs from canada, plus a race to hit a self-imposed deadline to choose a new supreme court justice. the world cup winners and losers as shoot-outs prove to be everything. who's that guy in a photo, photo bombing a wedding? "early day" starts right now.