piece. so people have got to read it. thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thank you for having us, lawrence. >> americans back ground troops. let's play "hardball." good evening, rime chris matthews in washington. big news night tonight. for the first time there's evidence that the american people would back deploying u.s. combat troops on the ground to fight isis if the military recommend its. obama's problem is that republicans overwhelming support using ground troops. democrats oppose such action. republicans are still the hawks in fighting isis on the ground. democrats are the doves. what this means, the people who put this president in office don't want an escalation of this war, while republicans are more

than ready for it. catch all that. meanwhile, there's lots of agitation about the secret service's failure to tell the first family that somebody was shooting into the white house windows. tonight we go the round table with this and two other big issues. president obama's attack on the cia for underestimating the threat from isis and a smattering of new polls showing the republicans are closing the deal this november on the united states senate. let's start tonight with the first real evidence that americans are ready for war. a plurality of americans now support sending combat troops if the military recommends such action. they're also expecting it to happen. those views come as u.s. led air strikes rain down on the isis army and the u.s. with arab allies conduct strikes over the weekend and through today, targeting military convoys and oil refineries.

the u.s. also struck in iraq, on an isis advance toward baghdad. one account spotted insurgents a mile from baghdad today. a prize winning columnist with the winning coast and the editor with the huffington post media group. thank you, gentlemen. all this is happening at the same time. the american people are getting, at least on the right, on the republican side are getting ready for ground troops. democrats are holding back. at the same time, we have the situation in iraq, where isis looks for real. >> yeah. >> they're still on the offense, right at the gates of baghdad. >> they look for real enough that military analysts don't think you can get rid of isis. you can do very much of anything to isis just from the air. so the idea is supposed to have the local ground forces, the iraqi army, the peshmerga, the mythical syrian moderate rebels who are supposed to close in on isis.

but people are skeptical of that, and gee, why would they be skeptical of that? is sounds far-fetched. but there's one person who doesn't want ground troops and says we're not going to have them, and that's barack obama. >> you believe he can hold back the military? >> not sure. >> that same poll that you showed, that graphic also said 2 out of 3 american people, by 2-1 say they expect us to have ground troops. >> so what is going to change? why do they think we're going to escalate no matter what the politicians, and the president say? >> don't forget the american people have now been living in this new world since 9/11. it's 13 years. it's a long time. and i think the american people are more sophisticated and knowledgeable about a lot of this than perhaps the president credits them. i don't think the american people are excited, to be sure. it's more that they're resigned. they know --

>> slippery slope? >> and also that this is a condition, this is almost like a disease that inhabits the world that we're going to have to constantly fight with some form of radiation or medication, of which ground troops may be part. and i think they're quite realistic, if unhappy about it, overall. there's a huge partisan split, but overall, the american people are probably gritting their teeth and saying we can't afford to have these people sake over that region. they're aware of the fact that it can, in the end, come back to haunt us. >> what a development. anyway, whether it's the prospect of more beheadings, or the proclivity of the american military, as we've been saying, americans see it going to a ground war. according to the new poll conducted by nbc news and the "wall street journal," a plurality of americans, 45%, say they would favor american ground troops if military commanders recommend it. take a look at those results. democrats are opposed to ground

troops 46-32. republicans support ground troops by 63-23. they are gung ho. they are jeronimo on this thing. this is the president's conundrum. an escalating conflict would divide his supporters and unite his opponents. 72% say the united states will end up using ground troops against isis, even though the president says he's ruled it out. this is a strange situation. a president who says we're not going to ground war, not really believed by the american people who believe we're going to ground war. >> the people say, yeah, yeah, right, right. so what's the plan exactly? they hear what the plan is and i think there's skepticism that this plan is going to do what the president says we have to do. he says you have to degrade and ultimately destroy isis. and so -- the islamic state or whatever you want to call it. so if you got to destroy it, i think people, as howard said, i

think people are more sophisticated about this. they're filling in the blanks, saying -- >> my question s there's 30-something thousand by latest estimates. are we going to kill them all? no, they're going to put their hands up. those days are over. there's not going to be a mass surrender. how are we going to end this? >> if you listen to what the president has been saying lately. he doesn't use the word destroy anymore. a few weeks ago he did. he said degrade and destroy. i think he understands and the american people probably understand that that's not in the cards. >> why do we end it? >> we don't end it. we contain it. the american people, by and large, unhappily understand that. the fact that most of them in effect don't believe what the president is saying here. the president keeps assuring no american boots on the ground in

combat. the american people, did you see that number. over 70% say it's going to be there. what does that say about the president's credibility on this? >> john boehner told the "new york times"s he did not want a war vote until next year. yesterday he said he would not hesitate to bring the congress back right now. i think he's watching these polls. >> i know you've said that assuming your speaker next year, you want to have a vote on a resolution. why not now? >> i'd be happy to. the president typically in a situation like this would call for an authorization vote and go sell that to the american people and send a resolution to the hill. the president hasn't done that. >> so to be clear, if the president put a resolution forward now, you'd call the congress back? >> i'd bring the congress back. >> i wonder what dinette he found the speaker at. he's out of town. he'll come back to washington

when he's called. >> that's what my column says, the president should call congress back, they ought to have a debate and vote. >> he may on extraordinary occasions convene both houses. he can do it. >> nobody believes this is a no-fault, half-way war. it's not going to work out that way. i don't think it's going to work out that way. and, so, this is important stuff. and this is what congress is supposed to do. >> but the president is reluctant to do it, i think. >> tell me why. >> couple reasons. >> daddy, because i've been trying to figure this one out. everybody comes on this show, we want to vote. nobody comes on and says they don't want to vote. >> the whole war powers act which was put in place was supposed to involve congress. it's ended up doing the opposite. they don't want to vote. democrats don't want to do it because it will display their divisions. they're bitterly divided. on the republican side they're gung ho.

but they don't want to embrace the president and validate his leadership. >> they don't want to say he's commander in chief. >> no, that's right. >> they'd rather criticize him for his shortcomings. >> yes. >> thank you both. joining us right now is republican senator ron johnson of wisconsin. a member of the senate foreign relations committee and the homeland security committee. thank you for joining us. can you go through the realities of capitol hill? do they reflect the voters on the democratic side who don't want a ground war? on the republican side they're willing to accept the escalation. where are the two parties and why are not getting a vote? >> we're not getting a vote because of the politics of the situation. you mentioned the key word -- reality. the american people are accepting reality. they support president obama's stated goal of defeating isis. nobody relishes war. certainly the american people don't. i don't.

but the fact is, we haven't chosen to go to war with islamic terror. they chose to go to war with us. our only choice right now is, are we going to fight that war on the defense? or are we going to take the offensive here? are we going to fight them overseas? or treat this as a law enforcement activity and be total defense and fight them on our shores? i think the american people are ahead of the politicians and the administration accepting that ugly reality that islamic terrorists have declared war on us since at least 1993 when they tried taking down the world trade center, and this is going to be a long, hard struggle. it's going to be difficult to defeat it. but here's where president obama's absolutely right. in his u.n. speech, which i thought was very strong, he said the muslim community must rise up. they must publicly, visibly, loudly, reject and renounce islamic terror, this ideology. that is, in the end, what it's going to take. but that's going to take years.

>> let me ask you about japan's goal, they wanted to knock us out of the pacific with pearl harbor. they thought they could do it. turns out they got us in the pacific even stronger. we took every island back until we got to them. hitler wanted a gigantic empire. what do you think isis wants? they want us out of the middle east and to establish a caliphate. what do they want with the united states? what is their goal as you see it? >> islamic terror is trying to destroy the modern world. don't ask me why. to establish this caliphate. >> i don't think they're stupid. here's what i think they want to do. right now, i do believe they want to draw the u.s. and the west into this battle. but they want to draw us in because they don't believe we have the staying power. i think charles krauthammer nailed it in his column. they are counting on the fact that we won't be in for the long-term.

we don't be in there to defeat isis. so when we bug out of there in a couple of years, they'll claim victory, and be the pre-eminent islamic terror group. they can establish their caliphate, but again, they've been -- go ahead. >> do you buy -- i thought the article was well written too today. but he makes the case we'll end up having to, quote, mow the lawn year after year, never facing a treaty with the arabs ever. it's just going to go on and on. never have to cut a deal then, because the war has to continue. but at some point, don't you think the united states is going to have to reach an end to this war, or do you believe it's an endless process of mowing the lawn, fighting terrorism for the rest of our lives, never stopping, is that how you see it? >> i think it really is going to end up being in the hands of the arab world. >> pretty depressing. >> this is their moment of choosing. are they going to reject this ideology and this hatred?

president obama's conundrum, if america leads too much, the arab states will sit back and go, america's going to take care of it one more time. if we don't lead enough, we won't be able to draw the arab world into that coalition 100% committed. so it's a very fine line. i don't envy president obama's task. but again, i thought his u.n. speech was strong. he laid out the steps. we got to be realistic. we got to be honest with the american public. he was wrong in taking any action off the table. he was right in establishing the goal of defeating islamic terror. first with isis and then around the world. that's why this is going to be a long tough slog. >> would you support ground troops if it came to it? >> if that's what it takes to defeat isis, yes.

we've got to support what it takes to achieve the goal president obama established. >> thank you both. a very interesting state there, wisconsin. coming up, a shocking report that a gunman, three years ago in 2011 fired seven shots in the white house and the secret service on duty failed to realize what was going on. it took four days for the agency to figure out what had happened. and even then it was only because a housekeeper discovered broken glass. meanwhile, there's news today that the man who jumped the white house fence made it farther into the building than we knew. he made it into the east room where they hold the press conferences. we'll have the round table, talking about the polling, showing americans supporting troops in the middle east if the military says so. and speaker john boehner said american boots might be required. he called isis barbarians who intended to kill us. >> republicans have three states

locked now and are advancing on three other key states, needed to win control of the chamber. let me finish tonight with my fears about this war, the more we bomb, the more enemies we make, the bigger isis grows. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

for the second year in a row, senator ted cruz came out on top at the values voter summit straw poll. he earned 25% of the vote cast at this weekend's summit down from 42% last year. ben carson came in second with 20% followed by former governor mike huckabee. and hillary clinton managed to sneak into the poll, getting one vote. we'll be right back.

welcome back to "hardball." earlier this month, most americans were aghast when a man with a knife jumped over the white house fence, charged

across the lawn and got into the president's house. late today "the washington post" reports he got further into the building than previously known. he barrelled through the front door carrying the knife, past the stairway that leads to the first family's living quarters and made it down the press conference room. another report describes another secret service fumble in 2011. seven shots were fired into the white house while the president's youngest daughter and his mother-in-law were inside. it took four days in that instance for the bullet assault on the white house to even be discovered by the secret service. it was a maid who discovered the damage. "the washington post" broke the story and learned three errors involved in that mistake. officers on scene who thought gunfire had probably hit the house were largely ignored. nobody did more than a cursory inspection of the white house for evidence of damage.

and key witnesses were not interviewed. the secret service put out a response explaining their actions in the days following. it outlines confusion and uncertainty on the night of the shooting. a former secret service agent for president obama and also our arthur and friend here and radio talk show host. what do you make of the fact that he got all the way to the east room? while he was wielding a knife and -- >> it seems someone did try to stop him, and the officer was overpowered, not that that's acceptable. multiple layers of security failed. there are mechanisms that we can't talk about on television

that broke down as well. the secret service from their end hasn't tried to put lipstick on this. they said it was an absolute breakdown. >> suppose he was a man with his wits about him -- i mean, here's a deranged guy pulls this off. what do you think a man with a plan could do? >> no question if he had a explosive vest on or any kind of a weapon at all, we'd be having a far different conversation. i think that's obvious. regardless of anybody's politics our president has to be safe and security in the white house. the secret service knows that. i think you're going to see massive changes. i hope some of the infighting goes away after this. >> "the washington post" reports the first lady was aghast and it is furious when she learned about the gun shots days later. writing, quote, the first lady

was seen upset when her husband arrived home five days later from australia. the president was fuming too. said not only had their aides failed to alert the first lady, but the secret service had stumbled in its response. these are close to you. what do you make of it? you lived with the secret service? you didn't like t but you lived with it. >> there's a lot disturbing about these incidents. with the knife-wielding crazy guy getting into the white house. had he had his wits about him and taken a different turn, he could have ended up in the living quarters of the first family. and the security up there, once you're up there, you're inside the envelope. there isn't a lot of security to be had once you get that far. the other incident with the shooting is in many ways, more serious and more troubling to me, because of the lackadaisical attitude towards the

investigation of this thing. am i the only person who is shocked to discover that there wasn't total video surveillance of the perimeter of the white house back then? i'm glad to hear that's been rectified, but my god, every mall in america is covered with cameras and, you can't get on an airplane without having your genitalia scrutinized. but the white house lawn is not covered. that's a shock. and who was the supervisor that decided this was unrelated gunfire incident when his own people were saying shots had been fired at the white house? why was he crediting some other source instead of his own people on the scene? very disturbing stuff. >> what about this woman who worked in the white house, there was an agent who felt she'd be embarrassed if he brought up something about all the evidence she saw. heard the shots, saw the damage to the window and didn't say anything. she thought it might embarrass

or cause criticism of her, what do you make of that? >> i don't think the general public understands and again, not an excuse here, but an explanation. the pressure the secret service is under from the white house staff. this is not a partisan issue. this has been for decades now, from the white house staff, to take care of what they call in d.c. parlance, optics. make sure things look nice and sound nice. this happens over and over again. i'm sadly not surprised that this happened. if you read that story in detail, you'll see that the rank and file agents and uniform division officers did what they were supposed to do. took out their weapons, took cover, called out gun shots. it was a management failure. it wasn't the rank and file. and sadly, that's not surprising. >> and they didn't report it. >> why didn't they tell the first lady what was going on? >> i will bet that they didn't want to disturb her. i've seen this a lot. written extensively about it. it's a bubble in the white

house, and the president is insulated from just about everything. it's not just political perception and politics. sometimes it's legitimate threats as well, because they don't want to disturb them. >> it drove the president crazy and apparently drove the first lady crazy. please come on more often. thank you for coming here. up next, it's not often we get to mix astrology and politics, but we do tonight. that's next in the side show. this is "hardball," the place for politics.

i'm sure you all saw this, this week. an intruder got into the white house. a man fox news refers to as president obama. [ laughter ] >> back to "hardball."

time now for the side show. "saturday night live" returned for the 40th season, just in time to secure nfl commissioner roger goodell for his handling of the ray rice domestic violence case. let's take a look. >> we want to be part of the solution. so, the nfl is organizing its own "take back the night" march on october 8th. what this says is, we fight women. oh, excuse me. we fight 4 women. we fight 4 different women? no? oh, of course not. i'm so sorry. >> you should be. next up, the baby watch is over for bill and hillary clinton who welcomed a granddaughter to the world. she was born to chelsea and husband mark on friday night in new york. it didn't take long for the proud grandparents to tweet out photos of their extended family,

nor for the famous new borne to get a mention on "snl's" weekend update. >> congratulations to chelsea clinton who gave birth to a baby girl on friday. a new grandma said she couldn't be any happier unless the baby was a latina in a swing state. >> that's good. they spoke to astrologers about the new born's personality. calling her "billary" because she'll have his charm and likability and hillary's focus and intensity and desire to make things happen. isn't that special? up next, the "hardball" round table on isis, boots on the ground and where the american public stands on both of them. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics.

>> if the goal is to destroy isis, as the president says it is, i don't believe the strategy that he outlined will accomplish that. >> why not?

>> at the end of the day, i think it's going to take more than air strikes to drive them out of there. at some point, somebody's boots have to be on the ground. maybe we can get enough of these forces trained, to get them on the battlefield, but somebody's boots have to be there. >> and if nobody else will step, you would recommend putting american boots on the ground? >> we have no choice. these are barbarians. they intend to kill us. if we don't destroy them first, we're going to pay the price. >> welcome back to "hardball." that was speaker boehner this weekend suggesting the president was wrong to rule out american boots on the ground to fight isis. as we talked about earlier tonight, many americans agree with him, according to our new poll. nearly 3/4 say eventually they believe american ground troops will be used. 45% say they support using them in military commanders say it's the best way to defeat isis. a different poll from cnn today shows the u.s. public to be much more reluctant. at the very least, americans seem resigned to the fact that ground troops will have to be

used in a war in the middle east. for more on that i'm joined by adam ship, democrat from california. he's on the intelligence committee. jay newton small, washington correspondent for "time" magazine. and david corn is washington bureau chief and msnbc political analyst. >> i want to start with you. why do you think the public is resigned to the idea, despite everything the president says, we're going in on the ground eventually? 72%. >> i think the american people are exhausted after 13 years, but they're pessimistic with prospects. it's been such a long hard fight. i think american people think it's going to be very tough. and they're right about that. at the same time, there's no appetite to put in ground troops. >> there is, because the right-wing, the republicans are all for it. 60-something percent are saying, yes, we want ground troops. >> they're saying the president shouldn't have ruled them out. which is a small point and one i don't agree with.

>> if the military says to do it, they click their heels and say, we're going in. >> it's interesting, because i discern a bit of a shift on the republican side. weeks ago when this was starting to take off, i think there was finger in the air on the republicans, they didn't know which way the public was going to break. now they see the public being somewhat acceptant of perhaps ground troops. they're getting to their classic position, the democratic president is weak. he has a good idea, but he won't do it well. they're moving to a hawk position. it's unclear whether -- >> the speaker now said he'll call the congress back if the president asks him to. of course he'd have to. >> this is the one thing that the leaders in the last meeting had in august, the one thing they agreed on out of all of the things on the agenda, none of them wanted to come back and vote on a war powers resolution weeks before an election.

>> that's the truth. president obama acknowledged that steve croft on 60 minutes last night that the u.s. underestimated the threat from isis. here's the president on "60 minutes." >> how did they end up where they are in control of so much territory? was that a complete surprise to you? >> well, i think our head of the intelligence community, jim clapper, has acknowledged that, i think they underestimated what had been taking place in syria. >> he didn't say that -- just say that we underestimated isil. he said we overestimated the ability and the will of our allies, the iraqi army, to fight. >> that's true. that's absolutely true. >> you know, congressman, starting to look old. >> i don't blame him. there's a lot of pressure on that job. >> he didn't want to be there. >> you look at any president who's lived in that office has long as he has and it ages you. >> what do you make of him

passing the buck and pointing the finger at the cia? saying they blew it. >> i wouldn't characterize it that way. >> what do you make of it? >> the president said he concurred with the head of the intelligence agencies, that certain things weren't foreseen. when leon panetta was asked, why didn't we see the arab spring coming? he said you can see pressure building up on the fault lines, you can tell an earthquake is coming, but in terms of when and -- >> let's keep it to politics. the cia believe he's blaming them. >> you're on the intelligence committee. did you not see this coming? i was in mosul a year and a half ago, people were saying, there's a lot of al qaeda here, this is really dangerous, that syria, a lot of the unrest -- the sunnis are coming over the border from syria. you saw it eight months ago they lost ramadi and fallujah. there were a lot of warning

signs. >> certainly we were aware that isis was a real threat that they were gaining ground, they were gaining military equipment, but seeing the iraqi army melt away as quickly as it did and fall apart. seeing how quickly the sunni communities came on board with isis, that i don't think was predicted. but i frankly don't blame the intelligence community over there. they don't have a crystal ball anymore than the rest of us. we -- >> richard engel was on the ground. he's the best in our business. he pointed out many reporters and observers in the region didn't underestimate the isis threat. they saw it coming. >> reporter: it's a major intelligence failure. radicals have been expanding in syria and iraq for two years. they bragged about their growing strength online. foreign journalists often reported that foreign fighters were streaming into syria. we interviewed them as they went in. the rise of extremism in syria and iraq was no secret.

>> pushing back. >> well, this is the real problem. we're now there, expanding our military actions in iraq and syria. if our intelligence community didn't have a good bead in the last two years, by james clapper's own admission, it didn't, how do we know they're going to do a better job as we go ahead and commit u.s. troops to further involvement? it's a hard part of the world to understand. we don't understand it. we didn't understand iraq before or after the invasion. i worry about what this means going ahead. if you don't have good intelligence, how can you make good decisions? >> why did we think the iraqi army was up to it if they weren't? >> as much as i respect richard engel, nothing that he reported in that clip, said we see the iraqi army falling apart. they're going to run and hide. people didn't see that coming. you can call that a failure, but frankly, you got to expect the intelligence community to have a crystal ball and i don't. they did tell us how maliki was

governing in a sectarian way. we could see the pressure. we could see the problems. but in terms of the speedy collapse of the military and the rise of this bond between the sunni tribes and isis, that was not adequately predicted. i can't let this go from your last question. that is, for are the speaker who is suing the president claiming he's exercising too much authority to say, i can't bring up a war resolution unless the president asks. that's the cop-out of all cop-outs. because the constitution gives us alone the power to declare war, and it doesn't say, when asked by the president. >> passing the buck. senator john mccain didn't hold back, that the rise of isis was an intelligence failure. he doesn't like obama. can we say that? here's senator mccain. >> intelligence people are pushing back hard. we predicted this and watched it. it was like watching a train wreck and warning every step of

the way that this was happening, because a residual force would have stabilized the situation and of course maybe had a break on maliki. >> if we had kept a bunch of troops over there, they'd be fighting isis. that would defeat the whole argument that only we can fight isis. i don't understand this residual force argument. if we stayed there forever, we could always be fighting. >> i think what mccain is trying to to say, it's a deterrent, having american boots on the ground. >> how does that work? >> because we're the strongest fighting worse in the world. >> up next, the hot senate races. the dogged and determined come november. republicans look to be closing the deal. a key contest, iowa. last night joni ernst and bill braley were both on offense. let's watch them both. >> i have a proven history of working across the aisle with republicans in the house and the

senate, because that's what iowans deserve. senator ernst would have voted to shut down the government. >> congressman, you threatened to sue a neighbor over chickens that came on to your property. you're talking about bipartisanship. how do we expect as iowans to believe that you will work across the aisle when you can't walk across your yard? [ kevin ] this is connolly, cameron, zach, and clementine.

we have a serious hairball issue. we clean it up, turn around, and there it is again. it's scary. little bit in my eye. [ michelle ] underneath the kitchen table, underneath my work desk, we've got enough to knit a sweater. [ doorbell rings ] zach, what is that? the swiffer sweeper. the swiffer dusters. it's some sort of magic cloth that sucks in all the dog hair. it's quick and easy. pretty amazing that it picked it all up. i would totally take on another dog. [ kevin ] really? ♪

i want to thank president jim gallagher, the faculty and students of la salle university for having me up to philadelphia yesterday. it was a joy to return to the campus where i attended high school my freshman year. it was a surprise to receive an honorary doctorate. the brothers who taught me in my youth continue to remain the finest men around. i had a great time talking to the students about the value of public service, not just for those you're serving, but the value that comes back to you for giving it. we'll be right back.

>> we're back and republicans like it or not are in the

process of closing the deal on u.s. senate races across the country. polls show they already have three states locked down already. west virginia, south dakota, and montana. and they're advancing strongly in three additional states they need to win control of the senate overall this november. arkansas, louisiana, and alaska. as a bonus, they could pick up the state of iowa and keep kansas, since independent greg orman in kansas says he'll caucus with the party who holds the majority. last night, democrat bruce braley and republican joni ernst faced off for the first time in a feisty debate. >> i'm not sure that's what senator ernst told the coke brothers when she went to their secret meetings. >> congressman braley, you're not running against these other people. you're running against me. i am a mother. i am a soldier, and i am an independent leader. you are being funded by tom steyer, who is a california billionaire extreme

environmentalist. so remember please, you're running against me. >> congressman, you're running and president obama's name is not on the ballot. and i am not going to owe president obama anything on election day. you're going to owe the coke brothers everything. >> jay newton, time magazine. take a look at these numbers coming up. first of all, north carolina, for months now, despite all the problem ins the red states, north carolina is sort of a purple state now. she looks like she can hold onto win this thing. >> you talk to democratic senators for the past six month or a year, you talk to who they have. they thought that prior in arkansas maybe louisiana could actually run really good campaigns and win by these small

margins and maybe preserve the senate for the democrats. she seems, at this point, to be doing the best of that. >> congressman, how do you run on the campaign when the national winds may be running against you. like she just said, this is about me. this isn't about the other people. >> that's exactly right. this isn't a nationalized race. this is about me. but the fact that both of them are making that argument indicates to me that this is not one of those cases where you've got the wind at your back or strongly in your face. the winds have been buffeted. and i think those buffeting winds are going to be curtailed. i think this is going the be a nail biter. >> but you have to say that, right? >> what else am i going to do? >> you're welcomed to say it, but, it seems like the south is really going to be a problem. these deep red states, like louisiana and arkansas and then alaska, i think they're going to complete the six. if they complete the six, they're going to pick up with

greg orrman who is going to join the winning side, which is kind of a weird thing to say. >> they may pick up something else, i don't know. >> i feel like, you know, they always pull it out. they'll go to a run-off no matter what, december 6th. the thing i love about it, 23 lsu has a playoff year, it's a game. >> she's got a tea party person over there at 9%. when he disappears in the runoff, she doesn't get to 50. >> there's not a man who will go to the poll ins louisiana. >> yeah, your thoughts? >> i agree. when it comes to runoff election, that might help the incouple bant. it depends, when wl she's in four or five, she can run it out. >> if it comes down to a two-person race. >> yes. >> you don't believe in that

poll. >> no, i do believe in that poll. but i think you'll get the benefit of a low-turnout election. >> it seems like her showbiz quality seems to have moved her ahead. like all the castration of hogs. and then congressman, showbiz matters there. look, that's all they know. >> in these two races where there isn't that strong, national direction, good campaigns matter. campaign mistakes matter. and, so, at the end of the day, i think what makes the cycle so unpredictable, it's going to be on the basis of who runs the strongest campaigns. you can consistently claim credit for doing that. >> let me give you a chance to paint the picture. what happens if the senate goes republican and the president has two years lecht? >> well, if people like the disz dysfunction that we have now, that can just enjoy the gridlock.

nothing is going to get done. >> no immigration? >> no immigration. no major initiative on jobs. no effort to put people back to work. it's just going to be two years of stagnation. >> if you hold the senate, you'll have the chance to get those things? >> we have a chance to get those things. the senate has been productive. they've passed an immigration bill. it's in the house where all of this is dying. if we have a republican senate, nothing is going to get out of there, either: >> what's the implications it? >> there will be so much bitterness. so muchd unhappiness. why would the republicans want it? they're obviously going to lose the house in 2016. so you get it for two year sns. >> winning is winning and losing is losing. >> don't forget the courts and appointments and other ag and all of that.

it's going to be a disaster. >> i'll tell you, we're going to have to have a lot of supreme court judges stick around for a while. i'll be right back. . no one else gives you options like that. [voice echoing] no one at all! no one at all! no one. wake up! [gasp] oh! you okay, buddy? i just had a dream that progressive had this thing called... the "name your price" tool... it isn't a dream, is it? nope. sorry! you know that thing freaks me out. he can hear you. he didn't mean that, kevin. kevin: yes, he did! keeping our competitors up at night. now, that's progressive.

everyone is looking for ways while to cut expenses.s unique, and that's where pg&e's online business energy checkup tool can really help. you can use it to track your actual energy use. find rebates that make equipment upgrades more affordable. even develop a customized energy plan for your company. think of it as a way to take more control over your operating costs. and yet another energy saving opportunity from pg&e. find new ways to save energy and money with pg&e's business energy check-up. let me finish tonight with my fears about this war we're in. they are, it's now estimated, more than 30,000 members of isis in iraq and syria. do we have to kill them all? is that how we have to defeat

them? how many people do we have to kill to defeat the members of isis. the members of those survivors to win the war. what about the new fighters that are going to come to iraq and syria to join them? doesn't this basic math show to coronet the fighting. that either england or germany throw its hands in the air when hit again and again from the air. 10 what is the end game of a war in which we american, yet, again, are seen bombing and killing arabs. is it to create more of they want hating us? is it possible that isis wants us bombing it. knowing that the more we bomb, the more we maim and kill, the more the world sees what we're doing, the world, the islamic world, will choose sides against us. it's something important to think about. "all in" with chris hayes starts

right now. tonight, on "all in", should the american people have confidence that the president and his family are safe. >> shocking. tonight, what is going on with the secret service. plus -- as i jumped out of the car, i identified myself and he jumped head first back into his car. >> the explanation from a south carolina trooper after he shot an unarmed man that appears to be completely contradicted by the dash cam video. what was he thinking in that moment. and it was a concert for the ages on saturday. tonight, all the high lights. >> definitely going to file this under coolest things i've ever done. >> and the amazing results of