>> dickerson: today on "face the nation," britain leaves the european union and ripples are felt across the pond and the world. while some in britain cheer, financial markets buckle and american politicians see similar force here. >> there's a sense we are too engaged with this global economy, we're too engaged with the world. i think you see it ma manifested here in america. >> dickerson: we sat down with marco rubio and announce he's back in the running for his senate seat. >> dickerson: and from the fairway of his golf course in stotland, donald trump use the brexit surprise to take a swing at his democratic rival. >> hillary clinton, or as i say, crooked hillary clinton, and barack obama, called it totally wrong. you know what? they call everything wrong. >> dickerson: clinton used the economic turmoil to make herl own case. >> in a volatile world, the last

thing we need is a volatile president. >> dickerson: we'll discuss the global fallout and have the latest on the 2016 presidential race including new cbs news battleground tracker results from key states. it's all ahead on "face the nation." >> dickerson: good morning to "face the nation." i'm john dickerson. we begin this morning with former presidential candidate marco rubio. we caught up with the senator yesterday in miami and started with the big news from the u.k. >> in terms of the politics of this, do you see any parallels between the brexit push and what's happening in american politics? >> i think globalization, the kind of move of the economy to this global economy is having an impact in multiple countries around the world. i think the reality that we have a new economy and the new economy is creating a lot of new jobs, but the people hired for the new jobs are not the same people that are losing jobs under the old economy.

in in essence, the people losing their jobs are the not people being hired by the new economy. all of this has created an incredible amount of strain and friction all over the world. and so there's a sense in many countries around the world that this is because we're too engaged with this global economy. we're too engaged with world. i think you see it manifested here in america. i i think you saw it in that vote there. i think there's other places you may see it pop up as well. >> dickerson: do you see it manifested in american for the support for donald trump? >> sure. it's one of the arguments he's made, that the u.s. needs to isolate itself more from other things going on around the world and focus on america first. and there are some element elemf truth to that argument but ultimately again not entirely, because given the dynamics that we now live in today, we cannot isolate ourselves from global events. we are the united states of america. we're not a small, irrelevant country. we are directly and immediately impacted by global events whether we want to be or not, whether they're national security ones or economic ones. we're 5% of the world's

population. if all we do is sell things to each other, there's only so much growth we can create. we need to be able to engage with economies all over the world. >> dickerson: do you have any concern about a kind of burn the system down mentality some people have seen in the brexit vote and they see in american politics today. the fancy economists are wrong. the elite wrong. the members of congress are wrong. do you see that -- >> i think it's good to hold the elite and it's fancy economist and it's congress accountable for the decisions they make. and i do not believe it's an illegitimate argument for someone who works in manufacturing to argue, for example, don't do this, because it will cost us jobs at the expense of them going to another country. i don't think that's an illegitimate argument for them to make. i think it challenges policymakers to figure out how it is we can embrace a new economy we cannot avoid. the future cannot be stopped. it's going to happen. whether we like it or not, automation's going to happen. the nature of the economy is going to continue to change. you couldn't stop the industrial revolution. you're not going to be able to stop the 21st century economy. but we have to figure out how to

benefit from it not just be hurt by. >> dickerson: you said you didn't trust donald trump with the nuclear codes. do you trust hillary clinton with the nuclear codes? >> i think the argument goes deeper than that when it comes to her. and that is what kind of foreign policy will she pursue and where will it lead us ultimately to make decisions like that, dramatic as the one you just outlined. this is a person who generally supported virtually all of the obama agenda, whether it was blown up in our face, whether it was the pivot to asia that was largely rhetorical but sent the message to europe that we were disengaging from them, whether it was the iran nuclear deal, i i think one one day will come to haunt us -- left uruguay and he's not going back to syria to open up a chain of car washes. i mean, this is the things she's supporting. >> dickerson: but do you truster, her with the codes? >> i think there's a process for the presidency and once you assume the office no matter who holds that office, i think the reality and gravity of it weighs

on these people. it's a very difficult issue to face. i would hope i can trust no matter who wins with the nuclear codes. but here's a better approach and that is ensuring we have a foreign policy to ensure we never reach a point where something that could actually happen, where nuclear weapons would have to be used, which in my mind is obviously the worst and most apocalyptic scenario possible. >> let me try it another bap the presidency on national security issues sometimes comes down to one person by themselves in a room alone no matter how much advice they've gotten. on those tough decisions, whether it's about the nuclear codes ocodes or about the others of decisions a single president can make you think donald trump has better character and judgment in those alone -- >> that's the challenge donald trump has. >> what about senator rubio? i know donald trump is a primary candidate trying to stained out in a field of 17 people. he is now the republican nominee. and he's going to have the next three months to go out and make the argument to the american people and help us envision him as president. and these are the kinds of issues that he's going to have to earn people's trust.

that's part of the process for anyone who runs. >> i know you want to stay in the legislative, but there was a poll recently that has you as the most popular choice for vice president. >> yeah, well, it's too late for that. i'm running for the united states senate from florida, and you can't run for two offices at once so -- >> dickerson: even if you were asked to not run for -- >> no, i -- that's not for me a viable option. i said that months ago. the differences in policies that me and donald have had are too big for something like that to work. it would be a distraction quite frankly to his campaign. >> dickerson: let me ask you about some of those policies. the supreme court rule that the president overreached on his authority in terms of deferring deportation. if a person is in the country illegally, maybe the -- the children have been born here, if they're here and they've broken no other law other than the immigration law, if donald trump is president, should they worry they're going to be deported? >> well, i've said this before. donald's argument is that he's going to create this program, and the reality of it is he can't do it. you can't round up and deport 11 million people. there are people that need to be deported.

criminals need to be deported. but you can't round up and deport 11, 10, 9 million people. the american people wouldn't stand for it once they saw what it would take to make that happen. and what's why i argue for piecemeal step-by-step approach which begins with enforcement and i think leads to the confidence we need from the american people to do something reasonable but responsible about people facing these circumstances. >> dickerson: here's a challenge. re-elected senator marco rubio will face in 2017. if donald trump is elected, there will be an effort to deport 11 million. if hillary clinton is elected, she said she will present comprehensive immigration reform to the congress. which one is the better starting point to get to what you want? >> neither. neither will happen. in that sense, donald is not going -- he's already kind of even backtracked from that a little bit and said that there's flexibility here about how this is dealt with. people do need to be deported -- >> dickerson: i know. i talked to him about it. he sure seems like he wants to deport those 11 million. >> i think there are people that need to be deported, crim naps, people that are dangerous, quite frankly, people that haven't been here that long.

there have to be cut off points. i don't think that's what's going to happen no matter what he says on the campaign. and on the other side, she's wasting -- first of all, i would ask her why didn't the democrats do that eight years ago when they controlled the house, the senate and the presidency? instead they focused on obamacare. second, the votes aren't there. there's less votes today for comprehensive reform than two years ago, four years ago. >> dickerson: another scenario for the newly elected senator if that happens, donald trump is president. he says he will have this temporary ban which he believes he has the authority do. what does senator rubeo do? >> temporary ban on? muslim immigration. that's not going to happen. we talk about isis and the need to defend isis and one of our great partners in defeating isis is kurds and kurdistans. they're muslims. you go and see some of our troops around the world who are on the front line work alongside these communities to defeat isis. they're muslim pumps see our

best allies in jordan. our allies in that reach than are working to us to defeet isis. they're muslims. you look at communities in america who are reporting to the fbi, we've got a radical here in our midst. they're muslims. so it's just -- that's not a real proposal. it's not something that's going to happen. >> dickerson: but he thinks he has executive authority do that. if he did, would senator rubio do something to undo that? >> sure. i think it's bad policy for the country to say you're going to have a religious exclusion. and i think you've heard from multiple leaders in our party say that. and by the way, you believe or i would hope that we would have the opportunity to encoun him if he's elected president in a different direction and about to deal with the problem he's trying to deal with islamic radical terror. and i believe we would be able -- or i hope we would be able to encourage him in a different direction from that. >> dickerson: when you're if you're re-elected to the senate, what do you want to do? >> there's a lot of things i think are important. the first, of course, is i think the senate needs to fulfill its role as a check and balance on the president, no matter who it is, and that means a president of our own party. and we need to work together

with that president together if we agree on it. and if we disagree we need to be able to stand up to the presidency even if they're of your own party. i remain on a macro scale obviously. i think it's important for america to fully bin frit from this -- benefit from this transition to a new economy. we can't stop the pace of progress. we either benefit from it or we're left behind by it. we recognize people are being hurt by it. >> dickerson: those things you want to do other than being a check on president, can any of those things happen in a senate that you described as a presidential candidate as a place where things go to die? >> i hope so. it's hard. >> dickerson: you were pretty tough on the senate -- >> and i continue to be. dickerson: why would you go back? 17% public approval rating. >> that's a good question. i think for me it came down to -- it wasn't my plan to run again. but i think it came down to whether or not you just give up on it. do you give up or do you say i'm going to take one more crack at really hoping this place gets better. i'm frustrated. as you said, i'm in the alone. a lot of americans are frustrated. look at zika?

an issue that's impacting florida. even what we got is not enough. it's frustrating. but ultimately it's the process we have. and we need people working within that process to make things happen as long as and as hard as it may be. >> dickerson: marco rubioing, thanks so much. >> thank you. dickerson: we turn now to the surprises vote this week by the united kingdom to leave the european union. to talk about what the brexit means for britain, the united states, and the world, we turn to rana faroohar and the author of a new book "makers and takers." david ignatius is a columnist at "the washington post." david rennie is the washington bury chief at "the economist" and mark zandi and the economist at moody's analytics. why did this happen? >> as we look at this, i think we can see that for many years, the momentum of the post-war world, the institutions, the eu

prime among them has been slowing and now has been reversed. i think there are many reasons for that, partly the rhetoric of integration was always more extreme than popular support would have allowed. again and again, year after year, europeans leaders said ever wider, ever deeper. but when this was to vote to trunties -- countries, even france, france turned down the eu constitution when it was put to french voters some years ago. so i think the public has always been more uneasy about this union than the elites who saw, had a vision of it and certainly profited from it. and we've run up against a wall. i just would note that economic globalization is here to stay. economic nationalism is not a viable idea. political nationalism clearly is strong. it's powerful in britain. it's powerful in russia. it's powerful everywhere.

but you're not going to reverse the way in which the world's trade flows are now bound together. and i think that's the problem that the british people have to think about. >> dickerson: david, pick up on this thread. where do you -- what do you think caused this? was it -- was immigration a bigger deal than the economic pinch? >> some of the forces we've seen in a ton of rich western democrat assist clearly here in america. you can look at the demographics in the trump vote and brexit. it tended to be people without college degrees. it tended to be older people, pensioners, people who lived in small towns out in the provinces, kind of the places we would call rust belt here in america. but i think the tragedy -- and this is where david is right about economic nationalism, that empty promise, when we were all watching the results come in on thursday night, one of the first places to vote decisively to leave, it was a big shock, was a northern sort of rust belt town called sunderland. the most famous thing about sunderland right now economically is it's home to a

gigantic car plant called nissen. and they warned they may have to stop making cars in the u.k. if you're a big murlty national and you have to decide can you sell cars or whatever you're making into europe with so much legal uncertainty over the next few years, why would you keep that plant there? so for us, the economists, the tragedy is, these people's pain about the changing world and globalization increased competition is clearly real. elites haven't listened to it carefully enough. but they're committing economic suicide. >> the people voting for -- dickerson: what are the inchcakes? -- implications? give us some condition crete implications of this? >> brexit has said there has been a major trust gap between the elites both in britain and everywhere else and the mass population. and i think that this is down to 40 years of globalization, which at a global level has increased prosperity and within many countries has increased prosperity, but it has also created groups of losers, economic losers. and i think that establishment parties not only in britain but in the u.s. and many continental

european countries have not been so great at saying, okay, here are the people that have suffered, and here's what we're going to do for them. until quite recently, it was unthinkable to question whether free trade was an unadulterated good. as i say, it does increase prosperity at a global level, but we have to start getting better in the u.s. and the u.k. and continental europe at figuring out how to help the losers. >> dickerson: the fallout from this. what do you think's going to happen immediately? >> well, i think the u.k.'s going down rabbit hole. i think this is going to be really tough for them. i think a recession is likely over the next 6, 12 months. for the european union, this is going to hurt, but i think they can digest it. the eu's a big place. u.k.'s big, but i think the eu's big enough to take it down and not go into recession. for us here in the united states, i don't think this is a big deal. i really don't. this doesn't lead to a broader splintering of europe. that would being a problem including us.

but barring that if what we're seeing now is what we're going to get, i think the u.s. economy is going to be just fine. in fact, there's some benefits to us. capital starts flowing into other places in world that are deemed to be safer, and that would include the united states. >> dickerson: all right. we're going to take a quick commercial break here and then we'll be and back have more conversation. so stick with us. we'll be back in a moment. our customer is a 21-year-old female. heavily into basketball. wait. data just changed... now she's into disc sports. ah, no she's not. since when? since now. she's into tai chi. she found disc sports too stressful. hold on. let me ask you this... what's she gonna like six months from now? who do we have on aerial karate? steve. steve. steve. and alexis. uh, no. just steve. just steve. just steve. live business, powered by sap. when you run live, you run simple.

>> dickerson: and we're back with more from our brexit panel. what does it mean to go down a rabbit hole? >> so i want to push back a little bit. i agree with mark, but it's not like the u.k. going into recession is going to kill the u.s. economy. but it has already had some big inch kangses. for one, the fed is keeping interest rates low for longer, in part because of the volatility that this has created. there's a lot of reasons that the fed might want to start raising interest rates. i think it underscores that central bankers everywhere are left holding the bag. we have national governments that are gridlocked, more and

more nationalistic. that leaves central bankers doing the heavy lifting. we need to have some real fiscal policy to create a main street recovery rather than one that's been genetically engineered by the fed. >> dickerson: but for the average american and that's what matters most, it's not going to affect their job. it's not going to affect the wages that they're going to get, their wage increases. it's not going to affect stock -- stock prices went down friday. we saw that. but we're exactly where we were at the start of the year. so for the -- mortgage rates could even be lower as a result of -- again going back into the capital flows -- >> could raise the dollar, though, which could affect trade. >> dickerson: what happens tomorrow in the u.k.? >> one of the things i think's really shocking for people in the u.k. right now is that the very disparate and rather diverse group of people who led the campaign out, you had some free market liberal romantic nationals on the one side. you had anti-immigration people. they've gone into hiding. they don't know what do. and we just don't know what their plan is. and there's now a kind of -- the

entire of westminster, london, is focused on a challenge to the labor leader. so there's a lot of -- i think they're missing the big picture which is geo politics. to get back to the point of should america worry? let's take the geopolitics of this. i'll tell you who's worrying the german government. angela merkel is terrified of a european union in which that large voice for globalism, for liberal outward-facing kind of ambillings, britain, has left the room, leaving her with a very weak france and a southern europe that's still very much closed in on itself. she does not want to be left in europe without the brits there. she is panicking and that should panic america. >> dickerson: david, pick up on that point. if angola -- angola america is panicking, is she worried about russia? >> i'm sure she's worried about both. but i think most of all she's worried about how germany this

big successful gigantic force in europe, how it conducts policy with the european union, which is sort of shielded german power, made it acceptable to people, as that falls away around her. talking to germans over the last few months as the brexit vote neared, i heard a lot of anxiety about precisely this question. and i think we're going to see a europe in which there will be a smaller group of countries with which german has shared interests, shared cultural values that will group around germany. there'll be looser controls for the periphery, i suspect. but i think, more broadly, the political issue here, economic globalization isn't going away in germany or anywhere. but politicians have got to find a language to talk about how the wealth that it creates is shared and how people feel govern -- how -- nationalism is picking -- >> it -- how are they going to be governance if they feel some ownership? every single place ash --

>> i don't think we should be complacent about net positive for the economy. yes, there's winners and there's losers and we have to be very careful about how we bring up the losers in all this. but this thing is -- is not inevitable. >> yeah. global recession a possibility? >> yeah. well, statistically, global recessions begin every eight years. we're kind of on track for it even if this breakup wasn't happening. one thing about nationalism too. across the world, millennials tend to be more national istick.

in the u.k. it was many younger people wanted to stag stay in. this is something that's going to keep coming back. if we don't got the new rums of globalization right we could beal with lots more poplism. >> there are some regrets we see this could be reversed at all? >> i don't see how -- the real tragedy of what's just happened is 17 million british people have given their political classes a mandate for something that cannot be delivered. they want continued prosperity selling tons of stuff in and out of europe to be a global free trading power but they want to close the borders to any foreigners that we don't want to dom in. and that can't be delivered. and so they've been lied to. so if you think this is the end of the anger, this is the beginning of the anger. because the elites cannot now deliver what the people have demanded. >> dickerson: all right. well, unfortunately, that's going to have to be the end of the conversation for the moment, though i'm sure we'll come back to it. thanks to all of you. and we'll be right back with news from our latest cbs news

2016 battle ground tracker poll. it was an idea. an inspiration. a wild "what-if." so scientists went to work. they examined 87 different protein structures. had 12 years of setbacks and breakthroughs, 4,423 sleepless nights, and countless trips back to the drawing board. at first they were told no, well... maybe, and finally: yes. then it was 36 clinical trials, 8,500 patient volunteers, and the hope of millions. and so after it became a medicine, someone who couldn't be cured, could be. me. ♪

what if 30,000 people download the new app? we're good. okay... what if a million people download the new app? we're good. five million? good. we scale on demand. hybrid infrastructure, boom. ok. what if 30 million people download the app? we're not good. we're total heroes. scale on demand with the number one company in cloud infrastructure.

real is touching a ray. amazing is moving like one. real is making new friends. amazing is getting this close. real is an animal rescue. amazing is over twenty-seven thousand of them. there is only one place where real and amazing live. seaworld. real. amazing >> dickerson: and we're back with the results from our latest cbs news battleground tracker poll. in all four of the competitive states we polled, secretary of state hillary clinton has a narrow lead on donald trump. in florida, clinton leads by three points, 44%-41%. in north carolina, she's ahead 44%-42%. clinton has her widest lead in

wisconsin, 41%-36%. and it's extremely close in colorado, with clinton barely leading trump by one point with 40%-39%. we'll be back with more results and what they signal for november with our cbs news director of elections anthony salvanto. stay with us. with new cabinets this wfrom this shop,house, with handles designed here, made here, shipped from here, on this plane flown by this pilot, who owns stock in this company, that builds big things and provides benefits to this woman, with new cabinets. they all have insurance crafted personally for them. not just coverage, craftsmanship.

not just insured. chubb insured. does your makeup remover every kiss-proof,ff? cry-proof, stay-proof look? neutrogena® makeup remover does. it erases 99% of your most stubborn makeup with one towelette. need any more proof than that? neutrogena.

>> dickerson: some of our cbs stations are leaving us now, but for most of the you, we'll be right back with more "face the nation." stay with us.

>> dickerson: welcome back to "face the nation." i'm john dickerson. we're back with cbs news director of elections, anthony salvanto. anthony, good to have you back. donald trump has had a bad couple of weeks. and yet, in the polling, he's not -- something's holding him up. what is it? >> what's holding him up is that his voters are concerned with much larger issues than what we in washington are concerned about, the day-to-day ups and downs, what he says, how much money he raises in the campaign. they're concerned about issues like what it means to be an american, big themes. that's what they say. they're concerned about things like the pace of globalization. you were talking about brexit earlier. and there are some similarities between what we saw over there in britain and what you see in donald trump's voters that i think are instructive, not necessarily predictive. you know, his voters are saying that the pace of cultural change

is going too fast for them. so with these larger themes in mind -- and their mission is really to upend and changes say sim that they don't think is working, then the day-to-day movements of the campaign what he says, just don't matter that much. >> dickerson: so they're focused on the big stuff where they think there's a big distinction between the candidates so any little thing is just kind of besides the point. >> yeah. dickerson: let's talk about in the -- in the polls, there has been a national picture which shows donald trump doing worse than hillary clinton by 4, 5, 6 points depending on which national poll you look at. these states it seems closer. is there a reason for that? >> it's partisanship. one of the reasons you should watch the battleground states beside the fact the election has decided state by state is these are battleground states for a reason. they're close in term fles their partisan submit between democrats and republicans. and haw see in all of these numbers now is is the partisans have come home to both these candidates, divided into their respective corners and they're not moving. and that's underpinning each of their support.

>> dickerson: so let's talk about hillary clinton. what is holding her up? what do her voters want to see? >> something very different, which is they're looking for somebody who can manage things day to day. they're interested in having an economy that they think works fairly and securing rights for people who don't yet have them but deserve them. that's a very big contrast. in fact, you want to make note of that contrast. even as we get here in the early part of the campaign defining what the campaign is about. you know, they're not even arguing over the same things. these voters -- for republicans this is almost existential. they're talking about not only what it means to be an american. they see the nation as being at war. larger issues. >> dickerson: in terms of terrorism. >> yeah. reporter: threat from terrorism continues. >> yeah, yeah. and so those are larger issues for them whereas for democrats, it seems much more procedural, how they manage this, how the economy works and so they're very, very different in both -- in what they see as actually

this election being about. >> dickerson: any nervous for hillary clinton -- anything for her to be nervous about in these findings? >> yeah, well, she's leading, but at the same time, she has to watch a couple of things. one is that donald trump continues to own the issue of change. more people in these states say he can bring change. now, he's limited to some extent, because the voters we talked about, the ones who feel like they're not at ease with globalization, etc., there is enough of them to keep him where he is but not yet to propel him to a win. so if they start to look more for change for change's sake, then i think we could see the kneel move a little bit. >> dickerson: 20 seconds. what about candidates running with donald trump at the top of the ticket. what do they have to be concerned about? >> the top of the ticket always affects the down-- people don't split tickets. so if their presidential candidate doesn't do well, they'll worry that people running for senate and house

will get dragged down because of that. >> dickerson: wonderful, anthony. thanks. as always, we look forward to having you back. and stick with us. and stick with us. we'll be right back. in a box. it's not a banner that goes on a wall. it's not something you do now and then. or when it's convenient. at bp, it's training and retraining in state-of-the-art simulators so we're better prepared for any situation. it's giving offshore teams support from onshore experts, so we have extra sets of eyes on our wells. and it's empowering anyone to stop a job if something doesn't seem right. so everyone comes home safely. we're working every day at bp, to improve our training, our technology, our culture. because safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

because safety is never being satisfied. mary buys a little lamb. one of millions of orders on this company's servers. accessible by thousands of suppliers and employees globally. but with cyber threats on the rise, mary's data could be under attack. with the help of at&t, and security that senses and mitigates cyber threats, their critical data is safer than ever. giving them the agility to be open & secure.

because no one knows & like at&t. >> dickerson: we're back now with our politics panel. peggy noonan is a cbs news contributor. tavis smiley is host of "the tavis smiley show" on pbs and author of "before you judge me." susan page is the washington bureau chief for "usa today." and mark leibovich is from "the new york times" magazine and has the cover story on donald trump. peggy, first on quet of brexit, we've seen both candidates grab this moment, donald trump on the golf links there saying this was right, this was a good thing. hillary clinton saying in a crazy world you don't want to have a crazy president like donald trump. how do you assess how each took this moment?

>> well, hillary's still is in a sense one of the faces of the administration. the administration, the white house lost on this one. they had tried to convince great britain, don't leave europe. great britain lost europe. so that doesn't help mrs. clinton. and she reacted in a sort of reasonable bureaucratic well-wishing way. trump's side, if you will, won. he got to claim if he wanted to that he is on the side of this populous wave which is sweeping across the western democracies. i can't imagine he did himself that much good by saying essentially i'm glad they voted that way in england. by the way, it's good for me and my golf course in scotland. that seemed insufficiently -- >> yeah. i'll leave it there. because what peggy's hitting on is this is more than just an event that we look to the candidates to speak to. because as marco rubio said,

elites don't know what they're talking about, there's an unrest that needs to be fixed. how do you feel like the candidates address this first round of responses to this? >> if trump thinks he won, first of all, it's short term, peggy, and second of all, it's delusional. we've been talkin talking abouts program about economic nationalism and globalization. but what some view as entrenchment others view as race baiting. there was a huge turn to the right last year. he threw immigrants under the bus. tried to distances him self-onself on the refugee crisis. tried to -- the mayor of lond understand to isis. so clearly there was some race baiting in this campaign and the rise of racial movements in the country, around the world rather, in this country are disturbing. so when you bring it back home to donald trump and his mantra continues to be make america great again, there are three questions one has to ask, one, for whom? number two, what days are you talking about returning to? what about those fellow citizens

for whom they've been waiting to experience the true greatness of america? and i think when people start asking those questions, it's not going to be a victory for donald trump. >> dickerson: susan, we have the moment. okay. that's fine. but both of these candidates are trying to win the argument. republicans see this as an existential threat to america. and donald trump seeps to be speaking to that. hillary clinton is saying, i've got a series of promany grass here that will help you in your economic pain. but listen to my series of programs. how do you see that conversation playing out going forward? is it two separate conversations, or does it mean somewhere in the middle and the two candidates get to kind of actually adjudicate what might happen to our country? >> they do seem to be running for two different offices in some ways, although a lot of the their focus is on how unsenable the other cand -- unacceptable the other candidate is. one problem is hillary clinton is making this argument that we heard in the brexit debate that it is too risky. it's catastrophic if you take this course. and voters in britain decided they were willing to take a risk. they were just that

dissatisfied. the question is donald trump is making the same bet here, that voters are so unhappy with the status quo that they're with to do something quite risky and look at the ad you showed earlier, the volatile -- we don't need a volatile president in a volatile time. i think are a certain number of voters who are saying this is a volatile time. exactly what we need is a volatile president. >> dickerson: yeah, it's risky for the bankers and i've already been taking a hit economically. how much worse can it get? mark, if had -- hillary clinton is not the change candidate. her argument is, though, there's change and then there's chaos. how do you think that plays out? >> well, i think certainly if donald trump wins, this will very much be a change election. i think hillary clinton is banking on the fact that she cap to the point the earthquake donald trump would represent if he is elected would be far too destructive to be something that

anyone should go forward with. so i think in that sense, it's a very, very clear choice. as far as brexit being predictive, i think instructive is a better word. that was the word anthony used. i think the demographics are very different. i also think tt there's several -- four or five months now that are going to pass in which fallout is going to be experienced in 401(k)s at least on the global stage where this becomes less of an abstraction and more of a reality. >> in the u.k., they were vote something on an issue. here we're voting for an individual. those are two very different things. so to get to the issue issues tt donald is talking about, you got to get past the individual. if the negatives remain as high as they do and he keeps insulting everyone, it's a very different conversation. issue, i think, peggy, versus individual. >> i actually agree with this point. >> yes. there are many -- [ laughter ] >> well done. this are many trump supporters who think brexit is an indicator of trump's inevitable victory. i sort of think, you know what?

trump himself is going to be the big indicator of trump's inevitable or evitable victory. in other words, how he abilities, who he is, how perceiveds for the next few months, his acceptance speech, that's what's going to determine his future. brexit is not really a wave you can ride. it is simply a sign that, in the west, people are pushing back against the way things have been for about 15 years that they don't like. >> susan, haven't we known, though, that voters are angry and upsetfor a while? i mean, when we -- because i'm trying to figure out -- if you have the tea party movement, you know people were unhappy. if you listen to politicians talking about stagnant wages, this has been in politics for a while. is this something new or is donald trump the thing that is new? >> one thing that has changed, we know people have been unhappy about the state of their economy and about the cost of college

and college debt and about the feeling kind of the american dream is slipping away. the additional layer we're hearing now is peoplery sag i've been telling my government about this and they aren't doing anything about it. and i think that is a theme we heard in great little bitten and it is definitely something we heard in this country talking to trump vosters and also bernie sanders voters. >> and if you don't hisen to me i'm going to shout. >> i think there's a difference, though, when you have someone actively campaigning and appealing to those fears, to -- not to your hopes and aspirations but to your fears. and i think that makes a difference as well. >> dickerson: mark, you wrote about the republican party and its embrace, and sometimes non-embrace, of donald trump. where is the state of that? >> in the last few weeks just talking to republicans, you look at these two big global events. you look at brexit, you look at orlando two weeks ago. and a lot of people that i've spoken to see these as big missed opportunities for trump, because i think -- i'm not sure how the brexit reaction on the

golf course is going to play out over the next few days, but people do define these candidates in times of crisis, whether it's a change election or not, in these moments. and certainly the orlando reaction, a lot of the republicans i've spoken to for this story and just generally, find it very, very troubling, because it was a potentially presidential moment. this could have been a more presidential moment after brexit, which it wasn't even clear he knew what brexit was a few weacks ago. >> and one reason the hillary clinton people are spending so much money on ads in key states right now, more than 23 million already, is because it's like concrete being poured. so the concrete is being poured on these two candidates. impressions are being set. as time goes on, it gets harder and harder to change things. by the time you get to the fall when the donald trump people would be advertising too. they'll need jackhammers to change the impression that's been set of donald trump. >> all this is true but you know what was in anthony's polling. in each of the states he looked at, in the bagground states, it was fairly close, but also trump

was holding on to republicans. he may be losing republicans in washington. he may be losing republicans in media land, but he's holding on to republicans in colorado and various states. it's so interesting to me. it's as if they're looking at all of us and saying, i don't care. >> right. i want change. dickerson: and tavis, hillary clinton is spending or her super pac's supporting her are spending mountain of money in these states. donald trump is not. but what don't people know about donald trump, a, and b, if he is this other character running his own kind of way, maybe those old metrics don't matter. >> i think, one, and i've never believed that trump needs as much money as hillary. i'm personally not buying into all the stories about the gap in the fund raising. he doesn't need it, number one. number two, who is donald trump? i don't know. i keep asking will the real donald trump show up or stand up, because what he says in public, his friends say, that's not the donald i know. but i think fundamentally, john, this election is going to be

about what kind of nation we're going to be. who are we really as a people? that's the ultimate question. so the numbers, i think, may be interesting at moment, but when people start to wrestle with that question, i think the brexit vote is instructive. because it makes a statement to the world who we are as a people. >> but i also think, sort of getting to peggy's point, there is no brent sco kroft bump here. [ laughter ] there is no -- we're talking establishment elite republicans versus the republicans who actually vote in the denver suburbs and the cleveland suburbs and the milwaukee suburbs, what have you. so, again, this is the same disconnect we're talking about that played out somewhat, not completely, but somewhat in england and that we have to be mindful of here. >> dickerson: let me ask you a question. marco rubio has said the post peppery things about donald trump of any of his opponents. he then he says, he gave a good

speech last week. it seems his comments were about moral and character and judgment but this week it was about hillary clinton being no good. that may be good politics but does that get at the concerns the people in the republican party have had about trump's moral and judgment? >> i think trump's speech this week about hillary clinton had the effect of, a, exciting some republicans, that they really wanted someone to bring it up and he did. he did it in a new way, not the way he was doing it a few months ago about bill's enabler but it was about money. it was being the candidate of the hedge funders. it was questioning her judgment. so there was that, that might be what rubio means in part, that it was a good speech. rubio himself is interesting to me in that he appears to have been pressed to run again for the senate. the assumption is he'll win the seat. but i look from far away and think, if he is going to be a real trump critic and separate

himself deeply from trump for reasons of conscience or whatever, fine. trump won florida and beat marco rubio by about 20 points in the primaries. and i just think rubio may be putting himself in a differ place. i'm not sure it's a safe seat. >> dickerson: we have about 20 seconds left. there was news on the email front with hillary clinton. didn't turn over an email that showed there were problems with her server. that's not good. >> an important disclosure. number one she gave a different explanation for why she had a private email server. she was concerned about the personal being accessible. it wasn't a matter of convenience, which is what she told the world. secondly, she didn't turn it over. she deleted this email partially and it came up because it came to the aid that she had sent it to. so it goes right to those questions about honesty, trustworthiness, transparency. >> dickerson: and that email was about the problems a home server would cause. so we'll end it there. thanks to all of you and we'll

be right back.

>> dickerson: we're joined now by the president of the committee for a responsible federal budget and head of the

campaign to fix the debt, maya macguineas. maya, welcome. you have some new numbers, a new report. what does it say? >> we do, john. thanks for having me. what we have been doing through this campaign is looking at the promises of all the candidates and along with those promises comprise tags. so we've been doing this for over a year now. we've look the at the candidates from ted cruz to bernie sanders. what we're going to come out with tomorrow is our first big deep dive comparing the policies of trump and clinton. so we'll talk about this more. but what we find is both candidates at a time when our debt is already at record levels would not put forth a plan that would put the death on a sustainable path. but that said, the plan of donald trump would add much, much more to the debt than hillary clinton's. >> dickerson: why? why trump's more than clinton's? >> when you look at donald trump's plan, it is really all about tax cuts. he has very significant tax cuts, almost $10 trillion added to the debt, and if you want to go that route, if you want to add tax -- add a great amount to the debt through tax cuts, you need to cut government spending.

but, in fact, his plan that has spending in health-care, in immigration costs, and importantly in veterans' benefits and the biggest part of his plan more interest on the debt because he borrows so much, actually increases spending. and what donald trump has said is that, don't worry, i will have very large economic growth. and that will get rid of the problem. so we looked at those numbers as well. and what we found is, because there's such huge amount added to the debt, again, over the ten years looking at his numbers, the total including what we're on track already to borrow, would be $20 trillion. he would add $11 trillion to the debt that's already there. you would have to grow the economy by 10% a year. that's five times as much as the impartial statementors already projecting and well above the record we already have. just because you say it doesn't make it true. that's not going to happen. >> dickerson: just to remind some people about where we are in the deficit budget picture, regardless of what the candidates propose, there is an

existing challenge that the american government faces. right? an existing -- you've got to balance the books. regardless of what new things you propose. >> there really is. and our debt situation is really bad. and honestly, you wouldn't know it from how candidates or the parties talk about it, because if there's one tiny area of bipartisan agreement, it's that nobody wants to talk about this issue because it's hard. but we are at record levels of debt, the highest it's been since we came out of world war ii. we're on track to add $10 trillion over the next ten years if we do nothing before any of these promises come true. the fastest growing part of the budget is interest payments. and that's squeezing out all other important parts of the butchest. and this affects -- budget. and this affects american families. if you want to fix the economy and do all the things you're talking about in this campaign, we have to have a plan to deal with the debt and we don't have that from either major candidate. >> dickerson: explain why there is a cost to delay, to not getting -- having this conversation? >> there's so many reasons that the debt actually affects voters. one thing is just last week, we erd heard from the trustees of social security and medicare.

these two important programs need to have changes to stay solvent. both candidates are not putting forth plans to secure social security. donald trump said he won't touch the program except for waste, fraud and abuse, which is not going to fix the program. and hillary clinton has been talking about expanding it but has made no mention of a plan to save social security. the longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes. and in all other areas of the budget, actually having these high debt levels, it slows the growth of the economy. it slows wages. it squeezes out the important priorities we have. nobody can implement the mans they want if they don't have reasonable debt levels. and importantly, you're not prepared for crises when they come along. brecks sit a great reminder of why i we need to have a debt that's under control, because emergencies will happen because downturns will happen, and you want to have a strong fiscal health to get started. >> dickerson: last question about 30 seconds left. if i'm ooh voter and i'm on the rope line what question do i ask

the candidates? >> it's really so important because it underlies all the other issues. but how would they deal with the unsustainable national debt? what would they put in their first budget that would bring the debt down to a sustainable level? i'm not even saying you have to balance the budget, but get it to the point where the debt's growing faster than the economy and that's going to require policy choices. these choices have costs and so far the costs would make the situation worse not better. we're going to have to change course. >> dickerson: thank you so much for being with us. and we'll be back in a moment.

wearing powerful sunscreen? yes! neutrogena® ultra sheer. no other sunscreen works better or feels better. clinically proven helioplex® provides unbeatable uva/uvb protection to help prevent early skin aging and skin cancer all with a clean light feel. for unbeatable protection. it's the one. the best for your skin. ultra sheer®. neutrogena®. see what's possible.

>> dickerson: that's it for us today. thanks for watching the show. tune in next week for more news, politics, and our fourth of july presidential book panel. until then, for "face the nation," i'm john dickerson. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> announcer: the following is a paid presentation for lifelock, the best identity-theft protection available. identity theft is the fastest growing crime in america. >> i started getting phone calls from credit collection companies. "you've opened an account here and here and here." they wanted payment. and it was payment for things that i did not do. >> i was hit with 12 different cases of identity theft within three days. how did somebody get ahold of my identity and become me? >> you see those movies about identity theft and, you know, someone living an alternate life and taking over, and i was scared. she had my home address, she had my telephone number, she had my social security number, and she was able to make a purchase for $8,000. >> someone got ahold of my driver's license number and obtained tickets pretending to be me, giving my information to