>> rose: welcome to the program. this evening, we talk about politics with frank luntz, gerald f. seib and jonathan martin. >> bloomberg believes they would have taken more votes away from clinton than trump and that's why he said he didn't do it. i believe he would have taken equal or more votes away from trump. >> rose: and kept anybody from getting 270. >> yes and he himself would have started in the mid to upper 20s. that makes him a viable candidate. he had the money, message, background, experience, he could have done it. >> rose: we conclude with samantha bee formerly of "the daily show." her new show is called "full frontal" with samantha bee. >> i think we have a real edge to us. it comes out really naturally. there is just a flow to that. we don't build the show to -- by comparison to any other show. we can't do it that way.

we just have our heads down and our eyes forward. we're always looking in the purest, clearest way to what would amuse and thrill us to do on the show. we don't care what anybody else is doing or what anybody else is -- you know, it's nice, people write i don't really read anything. >> rose: politics and samantha bee when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening

with politics and an open letter to state democrats, governor jerry brown of california endorsed hillary clinton for president today ahead of the state's democratic primary next week. meanwhile the presumptive republican presidential nominee donald trump held a news conference to address his pledged donations to veterans groups. >> i have raised a tremendous amount of money for the vets, almost $6 million, and more money is going to come in i believe over the next little while, too, but i've raised almost $6 million. all of the money has been paid out, and i'm going to give it to you in a second -- in fact, i broughtlase just in case that question was asked, but the money has been paid out. i have been thanked by so many veterans groups throughout the united states. one gentleman called me up recently crying that out of the blue he got a check for $100,000. but i have been thanked by so many great veterans groups. outside you have a few people picketing sent by h hillary clinton and they're picketing the money wasn't sent. the money's all been sent.

if we could, i wanted to keep it private because i don't think it's anybody's business if i want to send money to the vets. but i have to say this -- i raised close to $6 million. it will probably be over that amount when it's all said and done, but as of this moment, it's $5.6 million. >> rose: in a tweet, trump criticized a potential independent run by another still unknown presidential candidate. his comments were in response to a twitter announcement by bill crystal who said there will be an impressive contender with a real chance. a new poll by associated press and centers for public affairs research found republican and democratic voters feel a significant disconnect with their political parties. joining me here in new york is frank luntz, a political pollster and contributor to fox news and cbs news. from washington, d.c. gerald seib, washington bureau chief of the "wall street journal."

and jonathan martin, national political correspondent. of the "new york times." i am pleased to have all of them here. let me begin with you, gerald. trump's press concerns, what did he chief? >> an attack on the press which for a republican candidate is not a bad idea and managed to take the oxygen out of the room one more time. it's remarkable the press conference and controversy he was addressing might have been a problem for some other politics, maybe him as well. but the one thing that happens every time he gets out of the box is he takes attention away from everybody else and the whole day was discussing and parsing donald trump and the veterans question. that's worked for him. maybe at some point it won't work but right now it works for rose: all the questions answered? no. no, not really. the point was to take offense to

the fact the questions were raised at all. that was kind of the posture that was taken. i think some of the journalists there and those around the room were acing go at that because -- agog at that. >> rose: jonathan? he wants to make it about the media. it's his posture to create a fresh dust up to cover the previous one and he's very talented at that. ly point out this pressú conference took place, i believe, three days after donald trump at a rally in san diego complaining about the federal judge who was presiding over the lawsuit that has been filed against trump university. at that rally, mr. trump invoked that judge's ethnicity saying, i believe he's a mexican. by the way, this judge is an american, a federal judge.

but it's remarkable the nominee for the republican party can mention the ethnicity of a federal judge in that kind of way. at a press conference three days later he makes it all about veterans groups or the press themselves and we all kind of move on from that comment, but it does capture the degree to which trump is able to create some new story and put the -- put to rest the previous one. >> rose: is the press at fault? >> i think the press has to be aggressive in holding him accountable for the things he says and we can't just move on from the last controversy to address what he is saying now and we can't be so consumed by the attacks on the press to stop ourselves from holding him is accountable for some of the things he's saying. >> rose: what will they do about the money question and how much was raised and if those are the facts? >> i think you will see accountable. "the washington post" has done a great job on the question of him

giving to veterans groups and i think you will see more accountability on that fact. at these press conferences we get caught up in other issues that he's able to steer the conversation. >> rose: the roots of -- the roots of this controversy are pretty simple. reporters starting months ago started calling up veterans organizations and saying have you seen the money yet and a lot of them said no we haven't. it's not a grand conspiracy theory here at all. >> of course not. >> rose:o why wasn't the money sent? >> that's one of the questions that hasn't been answered. let's say it's taken a while. as jont suggests, that became not the point as of today. >> he's holding press conferences. is hillary clinton? how often does the media actually get to her? and this is one of the smart things trump has done which we haven't seen i in a candidate which is he actually gives the press access to him. he gives more interviews in a week than hillary clinton does in a month. he opens himself up.

i agree with you because you're trying to hold him accountable, but at least he gives access and, once again, it's the trump show. the average voter gets a chance to see this exchange and what's happening is they're deciding the fact he lets the press at him, that's what builds his credibility. even though he's only got about a 35% favorability rating, more and more people are considering voting for him because he seems authentic, he seems genuine. >> rose: he seems to have an attitude. >> and it's an aggressive attitude but the public is looking for that. in the work that we did, and it's going to be released in "the los angeles times," we did a survey in the swing states and have identified none of the above. it's an 11% component of the electorate and i fundamentally believe they will determine the election and they're not responding to issues, charlie. they're responding to attributes and the one attribute they want more than anything else is a candidate that's honest and trustworthy. they believe trump isn't and hillary clinton isn't but the

fact that trump allows people to get at him and goes back and forth with them, that creates an essence of authenticity that hillary clinton doesn't have. >> rose: and i assume creates not only authenticity but a sense of transparency. >> which is what voters are looking for. i never said publicly that i thought trump had the chance to win. i now believe and it's going to frighten many of your viewers, i now believe he genuinely does because her campaign is as inauthentic as anything i've seen, and trump -- he's going to have to get people who don't like him but those people will give him a chance they wouldn't hillary clinton and the clinton people have to wake up. >> rose: we'll come back to what the clinton people have to do. both to jerry and jonathan, do you think what frank said is increasingly part of the conventional wisdom that trump can in fact win this thing or not? >> yeah, i think so. we've taken looks at states where that could come into reality.

i mean, pennsylvania, north carolina, ohio, you know, states where he has the chance to turn what had been a blue state -- had been a blue state into a red state in a way that another more conventional republican probably didn't or ted cruz probably didn't. is it going to happen? no. is it possible? i think people are realizing it's possible. >> rose: jonathan you did a survey in the "new york times," you and a colleague looking at four states including my own, north carolina. >> right. there is no question that our reporting and the data reflects a competitive raise and that mr. trump will be more formidable than perhaps folks thought a few months ago. two things. structurally the map works against any republican nominee, whether trump or anyone else, democrats have an advantage on the map. since 1992, democrats have won m the same states. trump is claiming he can change that and sort of throw out the old map, but that's a daunting

place to start for any republican nominee. second, i would point out, keep in mind, hillary clinton has not secured the nomination yet of her own party. once that happens, the polling will presumably look different just as it did in 2008 after the obama-clinton race finally came to an end and democrats came home. the republicans have coa coalesd around trump, the democrats have not hillary at this point. >> rose: will they, is the question? >> if you look at the data, more democrats in 2008 hesitated about supporting obama who had backed hillary in the primary than those are now who are for bernie with regard to hillary this fall. so it sure seems possible, and there is no question there is bad blood in this democratic primary. the sanders folks are uneasy about hillary clinton and her campaign and the broader democrat establishment, but i think you will see a four to five-month sustained democratic campaign warning those bernie people that the alternative is

trump and that's probably their most compelling weapon. >> rose: and supreme court appointments in all of that? >> absolutely. it is a changed election and we have been seen a changed election like this really going back to 1980. 2008 -- i should say 2008, 1980, so twice in the last 45 years, and there are sanders people we're finding in our focus groups where trump is their second choice. >> rose: is that a significant factor? is it a few or significant number? >> let's say it's 10% of the vote. that's all it took. ralph nader got 1% of the vote in 2000 and that flipped florida for bush over al gore. all it takes, the libertarian candidate, the numbers are so strong between trump and clinton, and nobody wins by 20 points as they did 20, 30 years ago. >> rose: sure. do i think it's significant and these sanders people want to shake up washington and

wall street, and hillary clinton is not in position to get that type of voter. >> rose: let me raise one quick question with all of you. this notion bill crystal said over the weekend that it could be a third-party candidate. you guys see that as likely? do you know what he's talking about and does he know what he's talking about? >> in a way we have third party candidate, gary johnson on the libertarian ticket. it doesn't take much to tip the balance. it's hard to start from scratch and launch an independent presidential campaign, but the green and libertarian party is on balance. this might be a place where none of the above voters migrate and this is a strange year that's possible. >> rose: john? i think it's possible they could find somebody to run third party. keep in mind, it's too late to be on the texas ballot pending any kind of litigation that would be filed, and we're getting close to the line in north carolina. whoever would run would have to gather significants pretty

quickly to get on some of the ballots. but as jerry said, if you're a republican who's just looking for somebody who's not named trump or clinton, you already have an option. jerry johnson and bill were republican governors in the '90s and even if you don't think they're going to be president that is at least somewhere where you can go if you're republican to cast a protest vote of some kind. as frank pointed out, you know, if the johnson well ticket got 6%, 7% in some states, that's a significant number given how close this election could be. >> and mike bloomberg could have been that candidate and i think he made a miscalculation. bloomberg believes he would have taken more votes from clinton than trump and that's why he said he wouldn't do it. i believe in following we did he would have taken equal or more away from trump. >> rose: and kept anybody from getting 270. >> yes and he himself would have started in the mid, upper 20s. that makes him a viable

candidate. he had the money, he had the message, he had the background, he had the experience, he could have done it. >> rose: and he could have been in the debate if he'd had 20%. >> exactly, and that would have made this a very different race. he chose not to do it. i don't think it's significant. >> rose: but is bill crystal talking about mitt romney or not? does anybody know what he's talking about? >> it's not going to be romney. i've done some reporting with romney's people and they still indicate he's very reluctant to do this. his mind could be swayed but there is not a lot of time. they're up against the wall on a lot of the state ballots. >> he's not the right guy. >> rose:.>> rose: who is it othn gary johnston and bill well. >> or somebody like a ben sasse who said he would not do it, the senator from nebraska, smart, tough, very quick on his feet and the ability to express frustration with the current system, but that's not mitt romney. >> rose: is what the governor of california did today, popular

governor jerry brown stop the rise of sanders leading up to the primary on tuesday? >> he's a popular, successful governor, seen that way in california, at least. the incorporate said, basically, we should be for hillary clinton because she's got the best chance of beating trump and that's the imperative but i sure like that bernie sanders guy. but in the california context, that may be enough. you know, endorsements tend not to matter very much, and we tend to overrate them, i think, but this case, this guy, i think, probably does make a difference. >> and the timing is nice, too, at a moment where bernie had spent a lot of time there and seemed to be creeping up in the polls, it does help hillary a little bit. you can't say jerry brown is part of the clinton establishment. goodness knows jerry brown of all theme has had his differences with the clinton family over the years. >> think about it, what does it say that bernie sanders cannot

win the nomination, no shot, and yet he is pulling closer and closer to hillary clinton with the election over? >> rose: what does it say? that's a very good question. what does it say? his unhappiness with her? >> it's more than unhappiness. it is genuine discontent. but donald trump is unable to close that deal which is why these debates are going to with b the most incredible television. i have got to buy the pay-per-view right. charlie, you and i together should get global pa pay-per-viw because there will be billions of people tuning in to see a trump-clinton fight. >> i am all for the hype but let's see what the numbers look like this summer after democrats come on for hillary first. >> i was just going to say, frank, i think one possibility would be to by for bernie sanders, if he can't get the nomination, they can vote for bernie, make a statement and know it's not going to matter in the end because hillary is going to get the nomination. nothing lost except you get to make a better statement.

>> rose: everything is explaining 2016, jerry. the search for explanation of this year's bizarre political climate leads to the conclusion the recession that started in 2007 and the financial crisis of 2008, 2009 scared and scared the electorate more deeply and permanently than has been recognized before. yes, the economic statistics say there has been a recovery, a relatively nice one at that, but minimally many americans have never really recovered and perhaps never will. the experience has altered their attitude about the political and economic systems and their leaders and left them willing to consider risky alternatives. tell me more because i think that's exactly what frank polling is telling him. go ahead, jerry. >> there are these divergent lines, the line that says economic recovery is underway, six years of economic growth, 74

straight months of job creation. but the line that says the country is off track is going down, the line in the polling that says do you think the economy will get better keeps going down, so there is a gap between what the economy is supposed to look like and what people feel and i think the gap sex planned in part by the fact they think that what happened in 2007o eight and 2009 showed a system that didn't work, at least it didn't work for them and they haven't forgotten that and the numbers say things like g.d.p. growth don't change that view. >> 49% of americans think our best days are behind it. when have you ever known americans to be pessimistic about the future? two-thirds of americans believe the problems we face will get worse over the next ten years than better. >> rose: so trump was right to term it -- frame it in terms of making america great again? >> yes, he captured the emotion. he's the vees bill which they communicate and that's why they

will ignore all these weaknesses. >> rose: he'll say whatever about john mccain and they will forgive him about that even on veterans day? >> i thought his comment about john mccain would have killed it for him and it didn't and nothing seeps to kill him up to this point. >> let's see what happens to a broader electorate first. his numbers are terrible. he has the worst unfavorable numbers, frank, of any major party nominee in american history. it's not like he hasn't been hurt. he has been hurt. he just hasn't been hurt with a slice of the republican electorate. >> why is hillary clinton not destroying him? >> because she has bad numbers, too! she's unpopular! the primary is going on still and so democrats haven't come home yet. pretty straightforward. >> that's why in none of the above -- >> rose: let me ask you this, jonathan, you assume in what you said that democrats will come home because they'll look at the alternative and say even though i'm not thrilled by her, i'mless thrilled by the possibility of donald trump winning?

>> yeah, the alternative, you know, the old joe biden saying, what he cites to kevin white the former mayor of bovns, don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative, and that will be the hillary message for the next five ppeh establishment but the alternative is donald trump. look at 2008 when you had more people backing hillary clinton who said i'll never vote for obama, now you have the bernie folks who will say the same about hillary clinton. so it does seem like we'll have to wait till summer to feel what happens in the race based on what the democrats do after their primary. >> rose: jonathan, it seems to me you were saying everything is going to be okay, they may not like her, but when push comes to shove, democrats are gonna come home? >> she still has a narrow advantage based on the makeup of the electoral college which

favors democrats and the fact that donald trump's numbers are terrible. hers aren't much better, but they're not much better while her own primary is going on, still. so i think it's just not wise to make the sweeping analysis about the race until we know what happens after her primary is over. >> it's actually opposite. i'm unwilling to make that analysis. i don't think we should be comparing this to any other election because it isn't like any other election. the voters have a different mindset today than even in 2008, and every time we've made an assumption on both sides, democrats and republicans, so many media people, so many pundits have got it wrong that at some point you actually stop making projections, you stop comparing it to the past and you let the voters speak for themselves. >> rose: final word to you. often when you look at president's elections, some will say it's a debate about the future, some will say it depends on when's the debate, some will say who's in the end the most

optimistic candidate, some will say it depends on who it's a referendum on. help me understand what this election will be about. >> well, first of all, i share frank's view i'm just about out of the projection business this year for starters. >> rose: i was asking for understanding, not a projection. >> okay, i'll give you that. i think a strange dynamic here suggests itself that the question of how many people want to vote against hillary clinton stacked up against how many people want to vote against donald trump, is it a way this race is going to be decided? you have negatives like we've never seen before as we have been discussing. i think a big question, and this is one jonathan raises, how much of the democratic party consolidation will happen? and i think we'll have a pretty fair reading of that in a few weeks and that will give us a baseline. there will be a record number of people voting against the other guy this year, and that's a giant joker in the deck, i think. >> rose: thank you so much. thank you, jonathan.

>> thank you. >> rose: a pleasure to have you. thank you, frank. jerry, thank you. >> sure, happy to do it. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> how would the public react if this bill ever came up for a vote? well, we got a preview two years ago when a similar bill was proposed in california. listen, if human awfulness is a trigger for you, you might want to leave the room. >> threats are being made against assemblywoman lorena gonzalez over a state bill that would provide diapers to mothers in need. >> threats which range from unseating her to sterilization from an entire group of people. >> it is not government's responsibility to give diapers out or subsidies for diapers or money for diapers. >> looky whiney babies, if you didn't want to wall low in your own filth like an orphan you shouldn't have chosen poor parents, it's called personal responsible. not that californians didn't offer helpful alternatives.

>> jackie said i would rather see them offer childcare for moms on welfare than have them go to school and get a job that would support their families. >> true, without childcare mothers are left with the impossible choice, remain unemployed or convince their bosses to mire their baby. one problem any working parent could tell you if you both tore ask. >> you cannot take your child to childcare if you don't have an adequate supply of diapers. >> no diapers, no day care. i guarantee you if you give a box of luggies to a woman who spent the last 12 months trapped into an apartment with a poopy baby -- >> rose: she served on "the daily show" for 12 years and this year became the host of her own show on t.b.s., "full frontal." the show has a slightly gonzo

approach to political satire. she's also co-producer of "the detour" which employs her husband jason jones. i am pleased to have samantha bee at the table for the first time. welcome. >> excited to be here. >> rose: the title, "full frontal." i love the idea. >> thank you. when we were developing the show, we definitely wanted the show to feel audacious. we wanted it to have that spirit. actually one, overmy best friends, elena harken who i did comedy with and is a producer of the show came up with the title. she floated it to me via text and as soon as she did, i knew that was the name of the show. >> rose: "full frontal." about an attitude. >> it's about an attitude. it's about being open and being audacious, being a point of view that's obvious, i guess being naked in a way just figuratively.

>> rose: but what's interesting to me is late night seems to be changing. i mean forks example, you've gone from, you know, carson to letterman and leno, which was mainly stand up and have a few conversation and some sketches to falon and what others are doing now, what you're doing, what oliver is doing. it somehow feels different. perhaps it's just of our time. >> i think, you know, within, you know, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of late-night shows, but, you know, there is a diversity of style within a certain kind of format. have their unique take on it,e that's for sure. >> rose: well, i guess today who has the late night show. >> chelsea handler. >> rose: she's doing something else. >> she's on a netflix show which is a late night show. i think it's more on demand. >> rose: why is that? i have no idea. i wish i could answer that

question. i wish people would turn to me with that question. >> rose: we expect you to be an authority on -- >> i don't know. all i know is what i'm -- all i can speak to is what i'm doing. i had the opportunity to seize the opportunity. >> rose: this is a show about you and your attitude and idea, period, whatever gender you happen to be. >> yes, correct. >> rose: does it come out different simply because you are who you are? >> i absolutely think so. you know, we have -- tiff most wonderful show -- i have the most wonderful person on the show her name is joan miller and we have a mind melt that happens. i think the show is unique because we have our own point of view. >> rose: you see the same things as funny and sources of comedy? >> we do. there is a healthy, symbiotic relationship between the two of us and i think we seize upon things differently than the other shows. it's not -- it's not a huge effort for us to distill the

news in a different way. we're just different people. we're a different gender. i don't attribute it all to that, but when we read the paper, we read it through a different lens, through a life-long lens. >> rose: does everybody who is on "the daily show" think, well, some day i'll have my own show? >> i don't think so. i don't think i thought that for the most part. so many have and do and are great at it. i don't think that everybody thinks that. toward tend -- you know, look, i love jon -- toward tend, it was really a grind. you could feel the weight of all those years. it's not like you would think, oh, it's pure glory. >> rose: but it's also said -- and it's not a but -- that he was very nurturing, first guy in, last guy out. >> yep. >> rose: very punch in a sense dedicated to the nuts and bolts of the show. >> completely dedicated. every moment of the show passed through his editorial voice, no

question. he was very much in the nuts and bolts of the show and for good reason, i totally get that. he was nourishing. he encouraged me to dig deeper into my own point of view and that was very important. >> rose: dig deep into your uniqueness. >> and find a way to push the humor that are expected. >> rose: where to comedians come from? >> there is no chance anybody who knew me from early years in college would think you're a natural-born comedienne, you're going to stand on the stage in front of millions of people and just shout -- i mean, i think i was a quietly and subversive person. i'm an only child and we spend much time entertaining ourselves. >> rose: so the imagination grows in the sense of being

comfortable with yourself, too. >> there's nobody else to entertain you. there's no friends. you stare out your window and read your books and listen to your disco records. >> rose: so what do you want this to be? first of all after that, it's one day a week. how hard could that be? >> it's a breeze! what time do we they can the show, 6:00 on monday? >> rose: colbert is five nights a week. >> it's made up. yeah, it's all by design. only wanted to do a show once a week. >> rose: but is it different? it is different. it gives you -- you know, it's incredibly hard work. you know, it's a full-time experience. >> rose: i think it's harder because you've got one time each week to make it happen, whereas we can be a little bit not as good today as we were yesterday and perhaps tomorrow better than -- >> you can follow the news. this is an immediacy about following the news cycle more closely.

what we have to do is sit back from the daily news and focus more -- it's more of an analysis of the week that has passed, and what we think is coming in the future. so it's actually freeing. we thought that it was going to be a hindrance when we were first putting the show together and we found out that, you know, we have nothing to do with the scheduling of the show, so when we learned we were scheduled for mondays, we thought, oh, this is a tragedy! how can you do a show at the beginning of a week? nothing's happened yet. but it actually gives you the freedom to sit back, watch the patterns, like watch the stories that are emerging in a more long-term way. so it has actually, what we thought was a huge -- what we thought was a huge handicap is actually an asset for us. >> rose: it really is. and as the week progresses, you can see the turn of events it gives you. we don't have to do hot takes, you know what i mean? we can sit back. we can reject stories that

actually aren't fruitful for us, stories that emerged and disappeared quickly. you can see that's really helpful to us. plus doing the show once a week gives me freedom to do field pieces which i do like to go out into the world. >> rose: that may be the differences is more and more field pieces in terms of what people want to do. is it sketch comedy? no, field pieces. it's going out and reporting back in a humorous story. >> yes, i love that. >> rose: you did that for john. >> i did. i'm doing it differently for myself. >> rose: how so? when i was doing it for jon, it was an incredible training ground, but my takeaway from that is i don't need to strictly adhere to the format that we -- you know, there's a pretty routine format to the stories that we all came to know really well, but we don't have to do that anymore. i don't have to pretend i'm a reporter anymore. i'm past that character now, i don't have to do that anymore,

so it's freeing. >> you are yourself. i am myself. we can play with the form in the way we didn't have the freedom to do before because we didn't have the time to explore those things in the past. we have time to let stories percolate. i don't really have to pretend to have a point of view that i don't have anymore. >> rose: but are you best playing to the camera with a point of view? or do you feel more comfortable playing off of someone? part of the greatness of different kinds of people is that they can react to someone. i can imagine you and jason reacting to each other. >> sure. >> rose: in a funny way. i love both of those aspects of performance. i love delivering to the camera, i love speaking to the audience, i absolutely do, but it's fun -- i think i like doing field work mostly for selfish reasons actually which is a little crazy, but i actually do feel like, when i sit down with a person and i spend a little time percolating in a story, i actually personally learn something, and i really love

that. i love to be out in the world learning something for myself, and if it translates into a great story or a story we want to tell on the show that's the perfect place. >> rose: that's the reason i enjoy "60 minutes," it gives me a chance to report. >> i love to meet with people. even if i don't agree with what they're doing or saying, i love to talk with them. >> rose: to see them in their vairmt is great. >> yes. >> rose: this is you compairing presidential candidates to character in back to the future. >> hours before dropping out ted was throwing punches like a born again tiler durden. >> if anybody has seen back to the future 2, the screen writer says he based the character biff on donald trump, a character of a braggadocious arrogant baf foon. >> great scot! when you put it in back to the future terms, this whole crazy election makes sense. the repulsive billionaire bully, the greasy haired friendless loser, the woman whose life is

almost ruined by her terrible taste in men, the minor character who has zero impact on the rest of the movie, and federally lunatic who hangs out with teenagers whose well-intentioned but screws things up for everyone else! >> the government of libya! libyans! quick, jump in the car and go back to the '50s where we didn't have to appeal to black voters! (laughter) >> rose: didn't you love it? that was really fun to do. >> rose: this is a great year to be in comedy. the gift that keeps on giving. >> it's either a gift from jesus or satan. we're trying to figure out who it's from. >> rose: but the characters are so interesting and they're all drawn out in an interesting way. these are not button-down people. >> no. >> rose: they may be button-down, but we all know so much that is not button-down. >> it's fascinating. we could not have asked for --

you would never -- i mean, when we were pitching this show to t.b.s. and you have all your documents on what you want the show to look like, we could have never anticipated the field would be what it was and honed down to -- >> rose: the story of bernie sanders is every bit as interesting as the story of donald trump. >> it is. it's fascinating. >> and it continues, too. it continues. >> rose: they're out in california and he's creeping up. >> you bet. >> rose: there's a surprise every day. >> i'm excited to see what happens this week. >> rose: so when you think about next show, you will tape the next monday. >> yes. >> rose: what's happening in the bowels of "full frontal"? >> we have some idea about what we think will make a good show on monday. today was a little bit of a -- i mean, we did have a day off yesterday. >> rose: yes, we did. it was the long weekend. >> rose: i thought it was monday all day today. >> i'm confused as well. so we'll have a slow rampup.

tomorrow, wednesday is the day normally in our work week and, listen, we've done 13 shows. i can't say we have the pattern down completely. >> rose: but you have been renewed? >> yes, which is great. thank you so much. tomorrow is the day we'll start to hunker down and think about what we want to -- you know, there's a few threads in the air, i don't want to say what they are, but there are a few story ideas. wednesday is the day where we start to dig in to those stories a little more deeply. i already know what the field element will be for monday, which is timed perfectly, in my opinion. we actually met with gary johnson. >> rose: great! so it will be lib tear day. >> yes, it will be libertarian day in the fields. >> rose: and bill well which is his running mate. and then peter and -- >> the timing of our interview with gary johnson was great. i'm looking forward to it.

>> rose: you're the executive producer of "the detour." >> yes, jason and i are writing partners. >> rose: you write at the kitchen table? >> more specifically, we bring two different things to the table. he's a big-picture person. he's great at figuring out an overall arc to an episode, a season, and i'm very surgical. i like to come in and really poke holes in all his story lines. i'm the most annoying person in the world. this is not, no, this reason. and the person who comes in and slashes and burns, no. >> rose:eth not even funny! people don't think like this! a woman would never say that! but the two, ehe's kind of like a great bird's-eye view person and i'm a little more surgical so the two halves of the whole actually work really well together. creating "the detour" is one of the happiest things. >> rose: is the essential

skill you have writing? >> i don't know what it is. it's a little bit of a -- >> rose: mindset in writing? i think mindset. i think, as i recall in the earlier years in theater school, as i reflect, because i did go to theater school at one point, i was always really good at making a performance that was a bunch of different things. that was a strength that i had and i think that continues. i think that making shows that i would want to watch is definitely something. >> rose: and could people watch "the daily show" and say i know her, i think i know her? what comes away from what is clearly comedy is an insight into who she is and what her mind set is. >> i think you can know me more from "full frontal." i think that the attitude, i think that the passion is totally authentic to who i am. the -- some people interpret it as anger or fury. >> rose: or slash and burn.

or slash and burn, which is not -- which is not a reflection of who i am as a person. actually a really low-key person, but i do achieve total catharsis. >> rose: when you're sitting at the computer. >> and 21 minutes to get it right. >> rose: and get all the -- it's not anger, though. it's the search for some -- >> i think it's just meaning and point of view. we're so about point of view at the show and about stating our point of view so firmly and forcefully. i think that we just wanted to make a show that was vigorous and visceral and satisfying. we wanted to make a show that we wanted to watch and i think that we have done that. >> rose: it seems to me that that's a mistake people make all the time. they don't satisfy themselves and they're basically saying who's the audience, we can try to satisfy the audience, or try to satisfy somebody other than you. >> when you work in television, for the most part, there are a lot of masters.

there are a lot of people wrestling for control of your end product. lots and lots of voices. >> rose: and you have the advantage. >> we have the advantage of actually, to be perfectly honest, our network has just given ors the power and control. they understood that this was not the type show they had ever made before, and, so, they, you know, wanted to trust us. they trusted us to bring in a product that was strong and that had that point of view that we claimed we could serve them. >> rose: did you pitch it to them or did they come and say we would love to have a show idea from you because we know? >> there is a con vermings, actually, because i have been -- there was a convergence with them because we shot "the detour." when jon left, they were on the verge of picking it up as a series, then jon announced he was leaving. >> rose: surprised?

we knew it was coming. because he was tired? because he felt like -- >> we just knew -- it wasn't like he was going to do it forever. who would want to do it forever? we knew the end was coming. we didn't know when. so we were not surprised and surprised at the same time. it wasn't like an ambush. he gave us lots of warning. yeah, i think it was just -- we knew it was going to happen. we just didn't know when. so even -- it was still shocking on some level. but right around that time, we were really hoping to have the detour picked up. so we would have left no matter what, if the detour got picked up, we were leaving. then jon announced he was leaving. then i think that was really helpful, then t.b.s. came to us with this idea to maybe do a show with me, and they floated it in a pretty casual way. >> rose: 30 minutes once a week? >> they were so open to having it be whatever i wanted it to be. they just liked -- they just

loved the voice, they liked me as a performer, we had jum sucha good working relationship on the detour, it felt like a natural fit. my name was coming up in the news, it felt like the right thing for them to float the idea, and, of course, i seized the opportunity, i clutched the opportunity and held it so tightly to my heart like a diamond. >> rose: and set out to create a show. >> and set out to create a show. >> rose: that's a great thing to start from the beginning. they didn't come to you and say, we want you to do this show. >> no, it was a completely blank slate. so we could just imprint ourselves on that. i mean, listen, it's always a conversation. i think it was very hard for us to define our show. it's hard to -- you know, you can't just say, well, it's going to be a show and everyone's going to think i'm furious and i'm going to stand there and my body is going to do -- we always knew what the show would feel like, but i can't say that we

knew exactly what it would look like. but i did know that we wanted to do a once a week show for sure. >> rose: can you imagine it extending to five days a week? >> i don't think that that would -- i think that would completely change the show. that would actually ruin it for me, i think. not only would it ruin my wife, which i'm big into quality of life, charlie, to be honest. i like my life. it's perfectly enough work. >> rose: quality of of life is a good idea. >> quality of of life is good. >> rose: you have kids? three. >> rose: there you go. so we need time with them. we need to see our kids. it would prevent me from doing field work. i wouldn't be able to do it. it's important to me. it's always been an important part of the show. >> rose: the important thing doing the morning show for cbs, and i love doing it, and people be me and behind the scenes, it attaches you. it's live for two hours. >> and i think we would rather -- i mean, listen, our show is literally 21 minutes. we have 21 minutes to fill, and

we never have enough time. we don't have enough time. we write the show really fat and pare it down. >> rose: it's painful. it's a painful process but it's an excellent process to whittle away good jokes and kill your baby, as it were, as you're going. that, to us, is more satisfying than having to fill time with something that we don't know. i would much rather lucky to be in a position where we can craft something smaller that's a bit precious to us. >> rose: i don't think of canadians necessarily as funny people. >> i appreciate that. you're the first person who said that, but i appreciate that. >> rose: let me get to it. go ahead. >> rose: so many great comedians come out of canada. >> yeah, a lot of great comedians come out of canada. >> rose: there may be reasons those two things go together. >> there are great comedians in

canada, they just don't have a lot of opportunities to shine or come here, so there are untold riches. >> did you always want to come here or you were just going where the good work was? >> since i decided not to become an attorney, which i think we're all grateful for -- >> rose: the legal community thanks you today and tomorrow? >> no question. (laughter) >> rose: i promise you, you made the right decision. >> thank you. do i hate paperwork. >> rose: and meetings. yes. so, you know, i only -- you know, beyond that, i only ever really wanted to be a working -- a working actor, and then -- >> rose: is that right? i just wanted to make a living doing something i loved. >> rose: right. and then, as it happened, actually transitioned away from being an actor entirely and into my own work, which has been -- which i now see is the ultimate gift. i mean, creating your own thing, you can't go back. >> rose: but you could still be an actor.

>> i don't want. >> rose: because? i like to do my own thing now. >> rose: you can write your own movie. >> yeah, i guess i could. i'm not in it, though. i play jason's mother in two episodes which is entirely awful. not a great idea. >> rose: yeah. but it just doesn't interest me in the same way that it used to. i have found something i like doing better? which is what you're doing. >> and next i become a rock pianist because i'm also interested in doing that. >> rose: hello, elton. hello. i don't play the piano, but there's no time -- >> rose: how do you see the show changing, evolving, other than -- >> that, i don't -- >> rose: you just want to do more of what you do? >> i like doing what we're doing. i think we'll eventually work our way through this presidential election and then next year we'll have a president in place, and we know who we'll have for four years, and that will change -- >> rose: the first female or -- >> the first whatever.

so i think it will evolve naturally. we don't veally have an agenda for ourselves. certainly, we enjoy doing what we're doing. we're so new at it, really. i think we would like to enjoy it for a little while. >> rose: every article i read about you, and there are lots of articles when you decided to do this show, whether the new yorker or the box, the publication, they all asked the question, did she want and should she have been considered for "the daily show." >> right, right, right. i'm so much happier doing this. i'm so happy to -- hey, i think -- >> rose: in the moment. in the moment. i mean, i don't have any regret. it didn't feel realistic to me, to be honest, and then t.b.s. was there wanting, you know, really wanting me to do a show. >> rose: about you? not about somebody else's show. >> and who can resist someone who really wants you? >> rose: i know! that's an awfully delicious place to be.

>> rose: it is. very compelling. >> rose: people who don't appreciate that really need that lesson. >> it's wonderful. >> rose: if you really want to make somebody happy, explain to them how much you want them and how happy they make you. >> it's wonderful to have been courted by t.b.s., and the way they courted me, it really was unique. >> rose: so your answer is i really didn't care, didn't want it, i didn't need it, i didn't care about it? >> if t.b.s. would have been there, i'm sure it would have been more of a conversation. i can't speak to what was going on in their minds, but i'm so happy -- i so prefer to do my own thing. i so prefer it. it's so much better for me. i wouldn't be able to do the show -- i don't believe that i would be able to do the show i wanted to if i was still there because the operation is immense. eth a behemoth -- it's a behemoth. i don't think it would have worked for me to have blown

apart that institution and do it exactly in my way. you don't want to fit into someone else's mold and the shows i where have a strong presence, a strong show runner and they create a world for you. they're not just wishy-washy. i need to feel the presence of a strong creator in the show. that's what i like. >> rose: how about the staff? they're so great. we did a great job hiring. i just look around at myself. i'm so lucky. we're a small operation. it's not a big-time -- i mean, it's kind of big time. we're still, you know, small, compared to other shows. maybe we have 65 people on staff. >> rose: 65? something like that. well, we need a lot of researchers. >> rose: a lot of writers. we have a lot of producers. people in the field. you can't do it by yourself. it's a team. i likely truly feel like -- i constantly talk about the team we've built because i'm so

thankful for them. there is not one person who is, you know, su sue superfluous. >> rose: do you want to have a sharper edge than everybody else out there? >> i don't think that's consciously -- >> rose: do you think that's a reality even? >> i think that is happening. >> rose: i do, too. i think it's happening, absolutely. but it's not conscious. we don't come to work and go how can we be more sharp? >> rose: but you come to work, how can we be our best, what turns us on and how can we find ourselves in the most precise way. but the that's what the goal is, it's become as you said, sharper and more of an edge than almost everybody out there. >> i think it's really -- >> rose: because you have been true to yourself. >> yeah, i think we have a real edge to us. i think it comes out really naturally. there's just a flow to that. and i don't -- you know, we

don't build the show by comparison to any other show. we're only doing -- well, you can't do it that way. we just have our heads down and eyes forward and we're always looking in the purest, clearest way to what would amuse and thrill us to do open the show. we don't care what anybody else is doing or what anybody else is -- you know, it's nice. people write -- i don't really read anything. >> rose: you should read it. it's good. >> yeah, i've only read a couple reviews of the show, really just two or three, maybe. i try to stay out of it. >> rose: people you respect? the "new york times" i read because, honestly, we get it delivered in the morning and the entertainment section was on the outside, you know how they print it that way. >> rose: but i think you're somebody everybody was interested in. because you have the role you -- had the role you had on the daily show, people were interested. when you were on, we wanted to see more of you. >> oh, that's nice. >> rose: it's the truth. all of a sudden, you're getting

a show. people who wanted to find out more of you are finding out more about you. that's what happens. >> it's great. i try to stay out of it. it's easy for me to stay out of it. i'm really disciplined about not reading for myself. >> rose: you have three kids and a husband. >> when i leave work and go home, i'm off duty. it is full scale parenting. >> rose: are you a sports fan at all? are you going to watch the n.b.a. finals? >> i'm not a sports fan. >> rose: is jason? he's more of a football person. we'll watch the olympics. we will watch those for sure. >> rose: thank you for coming. great to have you. >> this was so much fun. i love it. i want to live here. >> rose: we have a little place over there you can have. a little refrigerator over there, you will be happy. >> i'll be fine. >> rose: samantha bee, "full frontal." thank you for joining us. see you next time. for morfor more about this progd

earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> rose: tomorrow night 8:00 p.m. eastern, gwen ifill hosts a town hall with president obama from elkhart, indiana.

this is "nightly business re with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> four in a row. a weak finish for the markets this may but the blue chip index still managed to do something it hasn't done since 2014. don't miss out. from a new house to a new car to maybe even a new job. the economy showing signs of picking up. so is now a good time to make that big personal financial decision? hot wheels. the big money behind classic '80s cars. all that and morton night on "nightly business report" for tuesday, may 31st. it was a gain for the month of may. a small one for the dow. still, a gain. that makes it four months in a row for the dow jones industrial er