♪ >> from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, ardest talk. john: issue one -- next stop, new hampshire. ted cruz and hillary clinton took the first victories of the 2016 presidential election, winning the respective republican and democratic caucuses in iowa, this week. but february is a cruel master to presidential candidates. so, forgoing sleep, the campaigns jetted off to new hampshire to mobilize supporters for tuesday's primary. but while analysts say donald trump and bernie sanders are the

likely victors come tuesday, others also have much at stake. notably, hillary clinton and jeb bush. if bernie sanders defeats mrs. clinton by a significant margin, her campaign will lose "the big mo" -- political momentum. and if jeb bush fails to score a respectable result, he will face calls to suspend his campaign and endorse senator marco rubio. >> if you've -- you've good something to say, say it direct lip. if i'm so fortunate to be the nominee, the first person i will call to talk to about where we go and how we get it done, will be senator sanders. john: who has the most to gain and the most to lose from new hampshire? pat buchanan? marco rubio. ay

as of knew, he is moving closer and closer to trump. maybe 10 points behind. so if he won new hampshire, i don't think he would, but he would be on his way to the -- into the finals for the republican nomination. trump, i think, has the most to lose if he loses new hampshire. but my guess is trump is going to win new hampshire and then it's going to move down to south carolina and for a while we're going to have a three-way race. what's going to happen, i think. maybe bush will go to south carolina because of all his money, but i think we're going to have a lot of governors who don't survive new hampshire. a lot of folks going to be leaving when next we meet. eleanor: right. i think trump and cruz have the most to lose because they're now the frontrunners and cruz has to show that his iowa win was not ust a one-off. that he has some backing. the problem with cruz is that a

lot of people don't like him and that's beginning to, i think, weigh his candidacy down. i think rubio has the most to gain because he does seem like the most likely republican nominee to actually gain some support from the general public. he's a very attractive guy. he's also a very untested, unexperienced guy, and i thought chris christie's comments calling him the boy in the bubble because all his events are very scripted, trying to make him look presidential. rick santorum, who dropped out of the race, took three minutes and couldn't come up with a single accomplishment that rubio had had in the u.s. senate. and his campaign then released a list of his accomplishments, which were very weak and have been picked apart. so he's going to get his turn in the barrel. i think he could win new hampshire, actually. on the democratic side, i think hillary and bernie are tied. i think it's an energetic debate. i think their appearance

together the other night is keeping a lot of interest in the race. i think hillary clinton is still the likely nominee. she's got to keep her cool and not attack sanders too much because she really needs his supporters in november. john: tom rogan? tom: i think marco rubio clearly had that shocker in iowa and it's built up his momentum. more importantly you see that consolidation from people like supporters for jeb bush, kasich, christie, moving toward rubio. i think pat is right, that if marco rubio does well in new hampshire -- i think there's an outside chance he could pull off a win there because of that big mo momentum. i think you'll see jeb, kasich -- kasich is kind ofer rell haven't, but that drop-off and movement toward rubio.

pat would say it's the washington candidate -- if you put those votes together, the christie, bush bloc, kasich, alongside rubio, you quickly get a sizable figure and i think that quickly puts rubio at the front of the race. john: will the revelations about blunt z campaign in iowa his momentum in new hampshire? is trump justified in saying that cruz stole the iowa election? ryan: no, it's not justified in saying that but what's so remarkable about donald trump is his ability in just a few tweets to just create the next 12 hours of what the campaign psych is going to be all about. the second i saw him do a little twitter storm attacking ted cruz for stealing the election, you knew that that was going to be the thing the cable networks were going to focus on, that the candidates were going to be asked about. it does throw cruz's game off. his strategy this whole time has

been to wait out everybody else and be one of the last two standing so he'd be the anti-establishment guy running up against a marco rubio or whoever the establishment decides to put up. so he has a ton to lose here, if donald trump sticks around and it becomes a donald trump vs. whoever they put up there. john: is it make or break time for jeb bush? ryan: he's broken. he was broken several months ago. pat: there's something very major going on in this country. trump got 5,000 people in new hampshire. these mammoth crowds he's got are incredible and cruz is part of sort of this revolution taking place and bernie is a revolution against the democratic establishment. if both these campaigns fail and you wind up with a rubio vs. hillary, you have a whole half of america which had all its enthusiasm up

wholly alienated. eleanor: you can speak for the republican side but the democratic side doesn't have to end up that way. frsm, they're not angry at the democratic establishment but the political establishment more as a whole. and i think in the end, if sanders doesn't get the nomination -- i don't expect that he will -- he's going to be out there telling his people to go with hillary and whoever the republicans nominate are going to get those people engineered -- energized and engineered. pat: how? eleanor: how? pat: i don't see any great enthusiasm. cruz has got a lot, i agree. and frump has enormous crowds but the other republicans are just -- excuse me, they have -- they'd have little crowds watching those debates if it weren't for those guys. john: who will win new hampshire's primaries? name the first-place winner on each side, please.

pat: i missed iowa on both. i'm going with trump in new hampshire and bernie with a good margin. eleanor: sanders in new hampshire, though hillary is going to close that margin somewhat, and trump, but i would not be surprised if rubio won. tom: i'm just going to roll the dies out there and hopefully get n "the daily show," like clarence. rubio and sanders. john: what's this about "the daily show,"? tom: clarence is featured because he got the right predictions. ryan: i think cruz and hillary will surge too. i think she might take him out in new hampshire. pat: that's bye-bye, bernie, if that happens. john: the answer is very simple, trump and sanders. pat: that's what i told you, john. you picked it right up from me. very good. john: there it was laying in front of me. coughing up blood.

john: issue two -- message in a tank. >> it will be a timely and significant contribution to nato's deterrence and collective defense. this proposal is a vivid demonstration of the strength of our transatlantic bond. john: president obama took charge of the oval office seven years ago. he promised a positive reset in relations with russia. but with the radioactive poisoning of a british spy in london, the downing of passenger jets over europe, and the aggressive advances of russian forces from ukraine to syria, president putin of russia has rebuked mr. obama. so, this week, commander in chief obama announced a quadrupling of u.s. military spending in europe -- $2.9 billion. this new money will be spent deploying u.s. military forces

into nato member states including estonia, latvia, and lithuania. is this a prudent or a provocative move by president obama? pat buchanan? pat: john, the question is who started cold war ii? i think we kid. the soviets wanted to be friends and allies of the united states so we moved nato right into the baltic republics. three of which were part of the soviet union. putin is reacting to that. he's got a significant military build-up and now we're reacting to that. my view is -- i'm not against, frankly, a next president trying a real reset that respects russian national interests, they respect ours and we get away with this face-off. for heaven's sakes, any kind of war over estonia would be the

end of estonia and a disaster that every great president of the cold war avoided. eleanor: first of all, the expansion of nato happened under bill clinton and was approved of by his secretary successors, including republican president george w. bush. so there is not a -- of obama. when obama took office he dealt very well with president medvedev and we had a few good years there and then putin came in and started flexing his muscles. he's getting a lot of requests from the europeans. the baltic nations are nervous about putin. pat: are germans are going to be sending troops in there in? eleanor: i don't think we want germany beefing up there. pat: so we do it ourselves?

eleanor: we have strategic interests there. pat: in estonia? i used to write captive nations resolutions pleading for let these little cups go one of these days. tom: here's a way we can balance it. pat is absolutely right what the european union has done far so little. pull out the bases from germany. put them into poland. it would signal that the united states backs allies who are willing to carry security. i think the nature at the united states in terms of self-determination -- putin is pushing now because he senses he can push. he didn't with george w. bush because he felt he couldn't. i would point to what happened with assad with chemical weapons, which was a fang deal and everyone knows it was. the credibility is such that putin keeps pushing the line.

how do you balance against having a war with the russians? you challenge them on a financial front but also challenge their -- pat: you're talking economic sanctions. if russia misbehaves, i agree 100%. as for assad, russia is in there backing the legitimate, recognized government of syria. the supporting the en-- enemies are you sis. eleanor: you can still work with putin in that europe but a little display of force in europe where our european allies are begging for it, it's a good idea. john: what moves is president obama taking to bolster europe against russia? are you with me on that? ryan: he's doing what putin wants. because putin is weak at home and that's why he's pushing abroad at the moment.

whenever a strong guy is looking weak he needs to find some enemies he can push around to try to rally his county behind him. putting all these military resources against him allows him to prom himself up. pat: people love him standing up to the united states because they think we double crossed them at the end of the cold war. eleanor: somewhere out there mitt romney is doing a high-five because the u.n. just put russia as the top military threat to the united states. pat: why are they a threat to the united states? tom: because of their undercutting of democratic values, because they support the slaughter of innocent people. pat: what do you think our egyptian allies are doing right now? tom: i agree with that. it's not a by nary thing, you go one or the other. pat: three powers -- the greatest vital interest is the united states and china and

russia avoid some kind of mess like the germans and the brits got into twice in the last century and finished themselves off. tom: -- if we give him that sense of opportunity buzz dulls that conflict come? pat: he'll be delighted because he can match it three times over from his own base. john: what moves is president obama taking in asia to counter china? pat: he's moving his boats around in the china sea. again, these tiny islands. it's not our quarterly. eleanor: he's also working on china with climate change, big issues. this is not one policy fits every area. pat, you're generally an isolationist, i think. pat: no, i just don't want to get into another war, cold war. eleanor: neither do i and i don't think obama is -- this is under the label of deterrence.

tom: 75% are effective. a hugement -- amount of international trailed flows through their waters. pat: if the chinese trailed interfered i agree. but if not, forget the islands. the vietnamese are making a fortress out of some of them, the philippines are. taiwan just sent one into tie ping. tay out of these quarrels. john: issue three -- kurds, turks and geneva. representatives of warring factions met in geneva this week, hoping to end a syrian civil war that has raged for nearly five years and taken 230,000 lives. but their hopes were in vain. with no progress, the talks were postponed to late february. here are the challenges. first, turkey has launched a bloody crackdown on kurdish activists, terrorists, and civilians. second, russia continues to

support syrian leader, bashar al-assad in his campaign against syrian sunnis, which encourages sunnis to fight his regime. third, turkey and sunni-arab nations like saudi arabia continue to support sunni rebel groups. fourth, isis is using this political chaos to retain its power across northern and eastern syria. nalysts fear that if peace continues to remain elusive, innocents across syria, turkey, and various refugee camps will ndlessly suffer. question -- who are the kurds, i ask you, ryan grim? ryan: the kurds are people in northern iran -- you have northern iraq, parts of syria and parts of turkey. they're one ethnicity but there are a lot of political

coalitions going on here. the iraqi kurds and the syrian kurds are not necessarily always on the same page but when they're up against an enemy like isis they're going to unite. the big problem we have over there right now is that you have two on the -- conflicts going on at the same time. these 20th century conflicts, old grievances combine good knew with the 21st search grievance, isis. you have turkey and the kurds battling each other like it's still the 1980's or 1990's. you have russia and the united states squaring off in syria and wrusha now is propping up the government soffectively that the government is pulling out of peace talks. because they see victory on the horizon. why are we going to talk to these "moderate rebels" if we can just wipe them out? pat: the syrians are making a serious move. but the kurds see the turks as

the enemy. they hate the kurds in syria and the gains they're making. as for the saudis, they want to bring down assad. assad is a dictator and a malevolent one but at the same time he and his army and hezbollah and the iranians are the bull away, against isis take over damascus. it's a very complex situation and everybody's got their own enemies. we ought to say we want to defeat isis first. eleanor: we're saying that but the president is keeping us at a distance. he doesn't want to get any more involved over there. ryan: it's not clear who isis hates more -- they hate more. isis or the kurds. tom: i would say it's an opportunity for the united states. we could have more influence because the turkish have before formed compromises with different kurd is -- kurdish

groups. pat: the turks have cold the -- told the kurds if you cut you off the semifinal supply lines into syria, we're coming after you. tony: this is the key, to have a -- tom: this is the key, to have a diplomatic compromise. the problem is they're pushing to the north into aleppo and slaughterering people. pat: way -- they want to win the war. john:: who's calling the shots in syria today? putin or president obama? michele: russia has stepped in and changed the tiled. assad was approaching his last legs. the ironians have been bleeding in there and the russians came in with the air power and they pounded the rebels and they're probably going to take by aleppo. eleanor: russia has been an historic ally of syria. i would say let russia have at

it and o pat: -- obama should keep on what he's doing, which is not very much. point of view sounds like trump. eleanor: sounds like bernie sanders too, and hillary clinton. nobody wants to send u.s. troops there. john: has the time come for obama to cut his loss -- losses in syria and embrace the assad regime? yes or no? pat: i think that's a good question in this sense. if the moderate rebels are defeated we should try to get a cease-fire and get them protected and get out and basically everybody go after isis. eleanor: the settlement will be on the condition that assad is removed. tom: that would be perfect but i worry that that's impossible. ryan: assad is not going anywhere. we had four or five years to make that happen. it didn't happen. ohn: good, i'm glad.

zika.four -- research and >> we can speed up research advances and improve access to cures. john: vice president joe biden is pushing scientists to share their research more openly. some scientists say sharing research enables more effective cancer treatment. but others fear this sharing lowers the proprietary value of a scientist's work and so reduces research incentives. yet improved medical research is rgent. consider that the w.h.o. -- world health organization -- has declared the zika virus your a global emergency. zika has infected over one million people in the americas, mostly in brazil, and is transmitted by the specific

aedes-genus of mosquitoes. note that zika can be sexually spread and has been linked to microcephaly, or underdeveloped brains in babies. should scientists listen to joe biden and share more research? pat: john, there's a real conflict here. many form suit cal companies and other scientists spend their whole lives and develop something and it's a miracle drug and it can n cure a tremendous amount. so they want to when rewarded and their reward is also an incentive to do more. at the same time people want to these -- use these drugs more broadly and in a humanitarian sense. there's a real conflict of legitimate interests here and it's one where i think the government should move in and if they have to, reward the

scientists for what they've done, at the same time -- eleanor: there are two issues here. somebody has to be incentivized to quickly get a vaccine for zika. it is a horrible affliction to bring babies into the world for small heads and brain damage and i think it should make some countries question some of their abortion policies because if you don't know that you're carrying this child and you discover you are, i think abortion is a very reasonable procedure. but what joe biden is doing, he got interested in cancer because his 46-year-old son was dying of cancer and he got access to and talked to leading physicians and scientists around the country and he realized they're doing different things here and if they talked to each other we could get along much quicker programs to finding cures to serious kinds of cancer. it's a moon shot to cancer. that's a different issue from sort of mobilizing to get a

vaccine. pat: giving away the information you've got -- eleanor: you ought to be able to get scientists to talk to each other, just the way we got the f.b.i. and national security -- excuse me. pat: it's a on the flict. people are working independently to be -- pat: not a con -- eleanor: not a conflict. the goal is to find a cure for diseases that are a tragedy for many people and scientists ought to be able to share information towards that goal. john: the question was how serious is the zika outbreak? the answer is it's a serious enough health threat that if it sn't caned before the -- contained before the summer olympics august 6 in brazil, it may spread to every country on the globe. as a precautionary measure, the olympics may have to be canceled if brazil's efforts at mosquito

eradication fail. you find that enlightening? ryan: i think it has to be left to the global health professionals but i think there are ways to incentivize behavior among scientists that are removed from profit. profit is not the only reason that people act in this world. the government has a huge role to play here and if they step in and if global governments step in and offer rewards for these types of breakthroughs on rare diseases where there isn't an obvious profit movie. jim: prediction? pat: next we meet, chris christie will be gone from the race. eleanor: if hillary clinton doesn't release the transcripts of our paid speeches, the issue will dog her like her emails. tom: when next we meet, jeb bush will be gone. ryan: marco rubio wins the g.o.p. nomination, gets crushed in the general by the $10 million vote. john: china's economy is in for

a heartlanding. at davepos, george sorrows said it is "almost inevitable" in switzerland, and he's right on the money. bye-bye. ♪

hello, and welcome to kqed newsroom. i'm scott shafer. later, the choir, drones, and effort to fight the zika virus. but first, super bowl fever. the bay area is at the center of the sporting world this week. the kickoff at levi stadium for super bowl 50 is at 3:30 sunday afternoon. and the region has been gearing up for the big game. football hasn't been the only big sports story around here. the red-hot golden state warriors earned a trip to the white house this week, where president obama honored last year's nba champs. and joining us now is longtime bay