this sunday morning, donald trump's call to temporarily ban muslims from entering the country may have thrilled his supporters but it's disgust it had establishment. >> you really have no choice. it's so out of control. it's so terrible. >> why republicans fear a ticket headed by trump is a ticket headed for disaster. plus, could we be looking at a contested convention? our new nbc news/"wall street journal" poll on the republican race shows a serious three-way contest developing with new signs that ted cruz and marco rubio are on the move. rubio joins me exclusively. also, a global deal on

climate change. i'll talk to secretary of state john kerry about the agreement in paris and about fears of homegrown terror. and joining me this morning for insight and analysis are veteran journalist and author of a new book about cyber terrorism, ted koppel. helene cooper of the "new york times." molly ball of the "atlantic" and jerry seib of the "wall street journal." welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." good sunday morning. 50 days until voters start expressing their opinion. we have two new polls on the republican race for president. according to what may be developing into a three-man race, let's get to these numbers. donald trump is back on top in our new national nbc news/"wall street journal" poll sitting at 27%. up four points since late october, the highest number he's had in our poll so far. ted cruz is surging, now in second, sitting at 22, more than double where he was in october. marco rubio also on the rise.

and look at old ben carson, the one-time leader. believe it or not, he led in the last nbc news/"wall street journal" poll. he's dropped dramatically to 11%. here's the rest of the candidates who picked up at least 1% in our poll. jeb bush still stuck in single digits. then this bombshell out of iowa. cruise surging into the lead with 31%, a 21-point gain since october. trump is holding steady at 21% followed by carson who, here, too has crashed. he's down 15 points since october. then rubio and bush. so what we think we're seeing that's emerging here is perhaps a three-way race with trump and cruz representing the insurgents at the republican gate and marco rubio counting on becoming the candidate of the faction he needs but is reluctant to acknowledge, the republican establishment. i caught up with senator rubio in greenville, south carolina and i asked him if donald trump had been good for the republican party and rubio's candidacy. >> obviously i don't agree with

everything he says. there's a lot we have a difference of opinion on but we can't ignore he's touched on issues people are concerned about. if you look at the statement he is made this week, obviously i think he made them to recapture the limelight after having lost it and i do think we lost some of the focus on the attacks in san bernardino and focused on a plan that isn't a plan and is never going to happen. but he is reminding us in that process that people are really upset and scared. they're worried. and i think the president made things worst with his speech, not better. that's what he''s focused in on. >> you call the comments offensive and outlandish. that's different than the tone you took with me right now. >> it's offensive and outlandish for example that it's not going to happen, number one, i violates the things we think about in our country. but also the practical reality. that in order for us to eidentiy homegrown violent extremism, we'll need the cooperation of muslim communities in this country. they may be the first ones to see it. they're the ones that will see radicalization happening at a mosque or in the community or

even among their own family members so -- and the other smart there's a narrative that isis and other jihadists pose that this is a war between muslims and the rest of the world and that sort of victimization narrative is something we shouldn't contribute to. on the other hand we have to acknowledge that there is a radical element in islam, jihadism, that needs to be called by name and needs to be confronted. >> about three months ago you were asked whether donald trump was qualified to be president and you said so far you hadn't heard anything to make him qualified but give it time. where have you in heard today. >> the most important thing for a president is to be commander in chief and that means having an understanding of the complex issue on foreign policy. foreign policy presents with us hard choice, not black or white choices. often times choices are down to two less than ideal outcomes but you have to choose which is the best for the country. i personally believe he continues to struggle to articulate that. >> so that makes him unqualified? >> well, obviously i think i'm the most qualified. that's why i'm running. >> is he qualified at all? >> i have very strong reservations about what he's

expressed about his understanding on these critical issues before our country so he has another month before the iowa caucus. >> do you think in a month he can learn? >> he's not alone. i think others in the field have confused us as well in terms of where they stand on these issues. >> you just said that the president's speech made it worse. if you were president in a moment like that, what would you have done? what would you have said? >> well, first i would have acknowledged why people are concerned and i would have acknowledged that -- >> he acknowledged it. >> beyond just acknowledging it in the way he did. i would have said, look, i know people, i personally know people that have told me they're not taking trip this is new year's because of they're afraid of what they're reading in the press, people in have always taken a tress. perhaps it's anecdotaanecdotal. we can defeat them. what we're doing now is not enough. and i honestly believe we need more air strikes, you can't defeat them from the air. you must do two additional things we are not doing now. number one is put together a global coalition on the ground made up primarily of arab

sunnis. we'll work with the kurds in the kurdish areas and even with christians but isis needs to be feeted on the ground and rejected ideologically by sunni arab themselves. it will require embedding alongside them special operators from the u.s. and other international partners. and we need to start cross messaging these people, countermessaging, propaganda has played a war in every conflict. i think this is critical. isis is portraying themselves that has extraordinary caliphate, that life is glorious under isis rule, nothing can be further from the truth. so we need to invest more time, for example, explaining to people what happens to non-iraqis that join isis. they're treated as cannon fodder. >> everything you just outlined, though, the administration would argue they're -- that's all part of their strategy. sounds like you basically agree with the president's strategy, you just might implement some part of it differently. >> maybe rhetorically some of it is but most of it is not. >> they have a propaganda program that frankly outsiders have said hasn't worked and maybe government can't be behind

it. >> i don't believe that we have. >> do you think government can do -- >> i don't think a couple twitter posts from the state department is a true anti- -- >> would you model after radio -- >> well, absolutely but it would require us to work with muslim communities around the world that are not islamists to counter message to young people, to counter message to them about why this is not true islam as these muslim leaders argue and, in fact, what life under isis control is like. much more widespread than what we're doing now. on the ground i do not believe the president is doing what i'm outlining. >> your campaign has been critical of one of your rivals, senator ted cruz for his vote on the usa freedom act and senator mike lee, somebody you have a tax plan with, you guys are allies on a lot of things, he has said that your rhetoric has been not based in fact. and that it's not true what you've been saying that somehow federal officials can't track -- use the usa freedom act, use the court to track the phone numbers. >> well, on this issue not only

is he wrong but others that argue that are wrong. we had a program that allowed us to collect the phone records. basically the phone bill, not the content of your conversations, your e-mails, anything like, that just your phone bill. only 16 people in the u.s. government could look at it and only if they got a court order from a fisa court to look at those phone records. and they retain them for a significant period of time. under this new law, we are trusting the phone companies to hold those records and all of these phone companies have different period of times when they hold it. some will hold it for 18 months, some six months. in is a valuable tool. if you have identified someone as a potential terrorist or someone who carries out a terrorist activity, the ability to look at who they've been calling and talking to is part of a larger puzzle that you can put together to see what network they've been working with, who they've been communicating with. we have lost that capacity in many cases. >> is this a commander-in-chief test for senator cruz? >> i believe it is for all the candidates. in the case of senator cruz my argument is it wasn't just the intelligence vote. he talks tough on these issues,

for example he's going to carpet bomb isis. but the only budget he's ever voted for in his time in the senate is a budget that cut defense spending by more than barack obama proposes we cut it. he voted against the defense authorization act every year it came up. and that is the bill -- and i assume if he voted against it he would veto it as president -- that's the bill that funds our troops and the ierm dome for israel. so my point is each time he's had to choose between strong national defense and some of the isolationist tendencies in american politics he sides with the isolationists. this is an important issue to have a debate over. it's not personal. >> there's been some questions on some of your -- even your supporters and people that are pulling for you that say where's rubio going to win? he's not playing to win iowa. he's not playing to win new hampshire. at some point, you know, donald trump aside, you have to win if you're going to win the nomination. >> look, we'll all be judged at the end of the race. at the end of the race things don't work out we'll be subject to criticism. let's wait and see how the votes are counted. i feel confident in our plan. >> are you trying to win iowa?

>> i'm trying to do well and win everywhere we campaign. i'm not running for second or third place in any state in this country. >> you're trying to win iowa? >> i'm trying to win everywhere we can. i always go for first place, it doesn't always work out this way. in many elections strong a strong second place is viewed at first place. you can't campaign to take second or third. >> you are viewed as the establishment candidate. how do you feel? >> it is viewed as a slight. >> is it an attack? >> it reflects my history. i wouldn't be here if the establishment didn't want me. i have consistently voted against some people who you would identify as the establishment are for. when i chose to get into this race i had people come forward and tell me i shouldn't run, it wasn't my turn. by the way, if i was the establishment favorite i would have raised more than $6 million in the last quarter. that all being said, the truth is, we ultimately will need to unify the party. the republican party cannot be elected unless it is together, working together in the same

direction and that alone is not enough. we can't win without unifying our party but we can't just win by unifying our party. we must also attract new people to our cause and we do that not by changing our principles but by applying our principles of limited government, free enterprise and strong national defense to the hopes and dreams of concerns of everyday americans some of whom have not heard from republicans in a long time. >> are you going to work to overturn same-sex marriage? >> i disagree with it on constitutional zblound are you going to overturn it? >> if you want to change the definition of marriage, you need to go to state legislatures and get them to change it. states have always defined marriage. that's why some people get married in las vegas by an elvis impersonator and in florida you have to wait a couple days. every state has different marriage laws but i do not believe the court system is the right way to do it because i don't believe -- >> it's done now. are you going to work to overturn it? >> you can't work to overturn it. >> you can do a constitutional amendment. >> that would be conceding that the current constitution is somehow wrong and needs to be fixed.

i don't think the current constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage. that belongs at the state and local level. and that's why if you want to change the definition of marriage, which is what this argue system about, it's not about discrimination, it's about the definition of a specific traditional and age-old institution, that definitional change, if you want to change it, you have a right to petition your state legislature and your elected representatives to do it. what is wrong is that the supreme court has found this hidden constitutional delight 200 years of jurisprudence had not discovered and overturned the will of voters in florida where over 60% passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman. >> so are you accepting the idea of same-sex marriage? >> well, it's current law. i don't believe any case law is settled law. any future supreme court can change it and ultimately i will appoint supreme court justices that will interpret the constitution as originally constructed. you can see the cot people

are and extented version of my sit down including health care, he's getting credit for from the right from helping to undo a big portion of obamacare. and the question of whether he's putting florida special interests ahead of his conservative principles on the issue of big sugar. that's on meetthepressnbc.com. when we come back, fear and loathing on the campaign trail. why so many in the republican party fe

here's a little healthy advice. take care of what makes you, you. right down to your skin. aveeno® daily moisturizing lotion with 5 vital nutrients for healthier looking skin in just one day. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results®

there's a truisim in american politics -- democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line. so we thought. not this year. the opposite has happened. democrats are falling in line with their established candidate, hillary clinton, while it's republicans, like a rebellious teenager, smitten with the bad boy on the motorbike in donald trump. and the parents -- in this case the republican establishment -- are taking a dim view of that relationship, terrify add trump nomination would wipe out republicans up and down the ballot. >> it's no longer a silent majority, it a test noisy majority. >> as donald trump weathers yet another storm of his own making -- >> are you racist? >> i am the least racist person you have ever met. i am the least racist person. >> the republican establishment is grappling with how to keep the nomination away from trump without alienating his supporters. the party's leaders in washington rushed to condemn donald trump's plan to ban muslim immigration. >> this is not conservatisconse. what was proposed yesterday is

not what this party stands for. >> that would be completely inconsistent with american values. >> the root of the panic? that trump at the top of the ticket will mean a wipeout down the ballot, losing the senate for republicans and even putting the house in jeopardy. but while trump's 2016 rivals warned republicans he is unelectable -- >> if he continues to do what he's doing he's destroying the party, it will be a generation before we can overcome this. maybe never. >> all this helps is hillary clinton for sure. >> those establishment rivals are mired in single digits and trump's latest comments don't appear to have damaged his standing among certain republican primary voters. >> who's cutting off people's heads in who's bombing buildings? who's bombing airplanes? not the christians. not the jewish, not the buddhists, it's the muslims. >> 41% of americans believe trump's campaign statements are frequently insulting and have the wrong approach. but that's true of just 16% of republicans. conservative rival ted cruz is

raising questions in private about trump's judgment. >> who am i comfortable having their finger on the button? now that's a question of strength but it's also a question of judgment. >> but in public avoiding a cage match, tweeting "sorry to disappoint, real donald trump is terrific. #dealwithit." behind closed doors, republican officials are preparing for the possibility of a contested convention. on the record, the party chair is treating trump cautiously telling a conservative newspaper he disagrees with trump's muslim ban but turning down requests to make that point on camera. and republican officials worry about angering trump supporters. a new coalition of white working class voters fighting to remake the gop who themselves may be open to an independent run by trump. >> if i'm two votes short, i have a problem because i'll have to go into that convention and i'm dealing with all these blood sucker politicians and they'll make their deals. but if i get the number of delegates, there's not a thing they can do and i'll do fine

with the establishment. i was a member of the establishment six months ago. >> i'm joined by a panel that's already laughing here. former "nightline" hose ted koppel, author of a new book about cyber terrorism called "lights out, a cyber attack, a nation unprepared." then helene cooper, pentagon correspondent for the "new york times," molly boll of the "atlantic" and jerry seib who is the bureau chief. jerry, let me start with you, trump, trump, trump, trump. but -- >> you were talking about fear and loathing. here's the number in our poll that has republican establishment people in fear and loathing mode. 59% of the people that we surveyed have a negative view of donald trump. 47% have a very negative view of donald trump. so that's -- those are tough numbers in a general election. that's the specter they worry about. however, having said that, you know, there is no sign that the block of people within the republican electorate who support donald trump are going anywhere. there's been no erosion. not since june, really, has

there been any question who was the leading candidate in the republican party. and these are new voters. will they be republican primary voters? we'll find out. >> molly, what's been interesting here is the -- people will look at these polls today and say trump's falling. no, trump's increased his support. not only here, it's -- there's other stuff going on. he's just not growing anymore. >> the story of this race has been remarkably stable. when you look at it over the long term, it's been remarkably stable. in 2012 we had different front-runners over and over and over again. there has been one front-runner in this republican primary and we talk about it like it's changing because there's churn underneath. people look at these polls with trump on top and there's a blindness that you hear among the republican establishment or pundits like they pretend he's not there. he is there, he is staying there and he is remarkably stable and the only thing that is going to take him out is somebody else doing better by consolidating the rest of the vote and this is what you're seeing in the register poll, in the iowa poll. when i talk to these establishment republicans, as we

like to call them, cruz scares them more than trump. because trump makes cruz look reasonable. >> that's interesting. i want to show you. the other candidates don't want to outright say they don't want to support trump. they're afraid of it. let me show you a roundup on that question from the candidates themselves. >> that's a hypothetical i reject out of hand that he is going to be the nominee. >> i will absolutely support the republican nominee but i hope and intend for that nominee to be me. >> i don't answer theoreticals. i don't answer hypotheticals. what i am firmly convinced so that donald trump will not be our nominee. >> i signed a pledge, that's why you have to be careful with pledges you sign, that i would support the republican nominee. but i will tell you, sir, there's no way that donald trump is going to be president. >> all right, so if you want to know why they won't say that, why they won't say they won't support him, well, i asked republican senator jeff flake of arizona and he gave me the honest dodge as to why.

take a listen. >> if republicans say now we will not support the ultimate nominee, that gives donald trump license to run as a third party candidate. >> ted, there's the issue. >> well, there's the issue and, of course, they're all old enough to remember lyndon baines johnson who once said if you get down into the mud with a hog and you wrestle with a hog, the hog loves it and you're both going to get dirty. they don't want to get dirty and they know that trump love this is kind of thing. and your polls and yours are what's giving them the material that they need. it's the oxygen the trump campaign requires. a poll every three or four days showing him where he is. >> a poll every three or four hours. [ laughter ] >> you're absolutely right. >> you're giving them too much credit with three or four days. and this is the -- that is the oxygen for trump and the fear of the republicans. they're afraid of him attacking them. >> they are. they are, because they're also afraid of alienating the people

who support him because those people they all believe are going to be up for grabs when the -- what they believe is going to be the inevitable happens and trump doesn't win the nomination and they want to make sure they've got his voters. it's so interesting watching how the republicans navigate this because i think the party seems to have moved to the right as a whole anyway and now it's almost as if there's this quandary in the heart of the party in how far to the right. can they embrace these voters and still win the general election? >> where has it moved? is it the right? >> in the poll, trump is getting motion of his support from republicans who consider themselves moderates or liberals. it's not the hard delight is supporting trump. it's not the -- >> well, it's a new group of people. >> he's not ideologically conservative. >> it's largely identity based, demographic based but not the right per say. you're right about the remember party overall. but it's not the tea party or what have you that's powering. >> among those groups, tea party

voters, talk radio listeners, social values voters, ted cruz is winning the people. donald trump is not winning those people. there's a different kind of populo populous, they call themselves more moderate than conservative part of the party. that's where his strength is. >> ted, these are the voters that have felt outcasted, their parents probably felt like outcasts in the '60s and '70s during that social upheaval. >> but the irony is they think they're being tough on isis and trump thinks he's being tough on isis. senator rubio in his interview with you touched on it very, very lightly. donald trump is in effect the recruiter in chief for isis. isis wants nothing more right now than to ve the world divided into judeo-christian on one side and the islamic world on the other. that's exactly what trump is doing for them. i think it's time we started thinking about what isis wants and then not doing it. >> and this is something we are taking a look at. is this stuff becoming new isis

propaganda? by the way, i'll pause here a bit and do more of this. nbc news is announcing today we're teaming up with the web site politifact to help us fact check key moments on the campaign trail, have a third party grade these things, including interviews here on "meet the press." you'll see their findings on our web site, meetthepressnbc.com including a fact check we'll post later today on one of senator rubio's statement from my earlier interview. back in a moment with secretary of state john kerry on the climate agreement in paris and the fears here at home on the idea of homegrown terrorism.

welcome back. earlier we showed you where all the republican candidates stand for the white house. but in our nbc news/"wall street journal" poll, we asked who would you choose if the race narrowed down to these five candidates? here's what we found out. the race narrows to three lanes. in lane one, establishment lane, bush and rubio. their totals add up to 30%.

cruz and carson, their lane of evangelical christian conservatives, they add up to 37%. then there's the trump lane, all of its own. he hits 30%. so what distinguishes these lanes? well, when it comes to the establishment lane, it's education. here, bush and rubio. 56% of their combined supporters have a college degree. let's go to the evangelical lane. in that second one, the carson and cruz voters. 56% of their voters attend church weekly. that's probably the biggest distinguishing characteristic. now let's go to trump. because in this third and final lane it appears to be a new force in the republican party, at least when it comes to primary politics. for instance, 64% of his supporters didn't attend college. the polar opposite of the establishment lane. then this fact, 61% of his supporters don't attend church weekly. again, opposite of the evangelical wing. there's one more distinguishing characteristic with worth pointing out. this is a blue-collar vote, again, that hasn't been a force in republican primaries before.

54% of trump supporters earn less than 75,000 a year. so the question is, to get the nomination, somebody is going to have to succeed in uniting at least twof these three lanes. who's got the best shot of that? right now, you might say it could be ted cruz. we shall see, it's something to watch for. later in the broadcast, we'll look at the chance we may have our first contested convention in 40 years if there is no consolidation. but up next, secretary of state john kerry on the climate

>> i believe this moment can be a turning point for the world. we've shown that the world has both the will and the ability to take on this challenge. that was president obama last night on the climate change deal struck in paris yesterday. the agreement aims to keep the increase in global temperatures well below 3.6 degrees fahrenheit by the end of this century. it also aims to raise about $100 billion to help developing countries adapt their economies in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. it was not drafted as a treaty to avoid president obama having to take it to congress for approval and late last night paris time i was joined by secretary of state john kerry and i started by asking about the lack of an enforcement mechanism in the agreement.

there's a lot of pledges, there's a lot of promises. but there seems to be no mechanism for getting countries to comply other than wagging your finger at them and shaming them. am i wrong? >> well, that's the most powerful weapon in many ways but it's not the only weapon. in fact, we think more other powerful weapons. president obama understood -- and believe me, he's been really committed to getting this done and it's his leadership in america on our own climate action plan that give us credibility here and the president has been able to do that without that enforcement mechanism but by setting policy. here we set policy. 186 countries came together. each submitted their own plan for reductions according to their capacities. we have a mandatory legally binding reporting mechanism, chuck, and that reporting mechanism requires people to retool their plans every five

years in order to do more than they might be doing and meet the goal. people understand this issue. this is not a question of doing it because it seems nice or politically it's good. it's because it's having a profoundly negative impact on nations. they need to respond and that's perhaps the most compelling reason of all. >> but you say "legally binding." okay, so somebody doesn't comply, again, is it -- what's this law that you're going to hit them with other than international shame? >> there's a mechanism being set up within this structure that will promote compliance and you will have nations within that mechanism working with countries in order to help bring them on board. you don't always need a sledgehamm sledgehammer. if you can provide people with technology or you provide them with technical assistance or you've discovered a new means of

reducing emissions more -- at less cost, more efficiency there will be a huge sharing of these kinds of experiences through the reporting mechanism of the agreement. and that's going to have a profound impact on a lot of countries, chuck. it is enough to necessarily get us there. probably not but what it is is enough to send a very powerful message to the global marketplace. and we expect somewhere in the vicinity of $50 trillion to be spend next 30, 40 years on energy. that is going to be one of the greatest reasons that nations spontaneously move in this direction because tere are jobs to be created, money to be made and there's a population to respond to in terms of the demand of their citizens. >> i know you can go around congress in agreeing to this because you're not asking for ratification but congress does have the power of the purse.

and they can prevent the federal government, despite executive action, from using money to participate in this. if they do that, do you ask the president to veto that bill? is that a show down? how do you get congress to just give you the money you need to participate in this deal? >> well, let me tell you something, president obama has been on the phone to president xi this week, prime minister modi, president hollande. he's called the president of brazil. he's invested in this very deeply. this is a major priority because president obama believes this is a major challenge to our country. so if people want to tempt the president's veto, i believe they do so inviting him to take the steps they will do to protect what he believes is a critical urgent national security issue for our country. and the president, as you know, has been able to secure money for critical programs on the

basis of the fact that there is that check and palace between the congress and the executive. so i think the president's going to stand up for his program no matter what. >> you've spent a lot of time with a lot of diplomats around the world. what's been their reaction to donald trump's proposal to temporarily ban muslim immigration into the united states? >> well, those people who know the united states well are quite shocked because they see it as totally contrary to american values, as discriminatory and, frankly as potentially dangerous and it seems like a person running for united states is doing well in the polls is prepared to take actions that would, in fact, ratify the notion that people are at war against islam, not against daesh. so i think you have to be very careful by categorizing people

by being muslim. that's discrimination and it's contrary, i think, to the fundamental values of our country. we have plenty of ways to vet people. we already do it. we have a huge process of examining people for visas. we know who's coming into our country for the most part. >> you're talking about review of the state department. the wife in the san bernardino terrorist attack, it turned out, she had been communicating radical believes on social media before she applied for her fiance visa. that's something done during the veti in vetting process. is that something that now needs to be done during the vetting process? a look at social media and things like that? >> the review has been ordered and we need to look at whether there are means and how we can do it. clearly the social media has placed a whole new burden and a whole new set of questions but not impossible ones to resolve and i think we need to look at this very, very carefully which

is what we're doing before we jump to a wholesale prohibition without understanding what the implications may be. >> that was secretary of state john kerry in paris. it was after midnight in paris time when we talked. coming up, it's been 40 years since we saw a contested convention. that was in 1976 between president gerald ford and ronald reagan. up next, the very real possibility you saw in our data display there on the fact of the matter that t do you know the secret to a happy home in these modern times? it's a housewife who's in control of the finances. actually, any wife, husband, or human person can use progressive's name your price tool to take control of their budget. and while the men do the hard work of making money,

she can get all the car insurance options her little heart desires. or the women might do the hard work of making money. [ chuckling ] women don't have jobs. is this guy for real? modernizing car insurance with -- that's enough out of you! the name your price tool, only from progressive. where is your husband? the name your price tool, only from progressive. htake care of what makes you,e. you. right down to your skin. aveeno® daily moisturizing lotion with 5 vital nutrients for healthier looking skin in just one day. aveeno®. naturally beautiful results®

welcome back. not since 1976 have we even seen the potential for a contested political convention but we might see one this year in cleveland. here are four possible scenario s we're looking at in the republican race right now. one is trump fades and and either ted cruz or marco rubio takes over. no fight in that case. second scenario has trump fading and cruz becomes the insurgent candidate. the two of them go on, one wins and there will be no convention fight. scenario three is trump taking off, party going into panic mode, and unless trump walks in with a majority of delegates count on a contested convention. the fourth scenario is one i outlined earlier, trump, cruz, rubio and split everything one-third, one-third, one-third, no clear winner arrives in cleveland and let the games

begin. jerry, i know it seems absurd and everything but there seems to be something different. to me it's about trump. if trump is viable for the next three or four month s we're going to have a contested convention. >> you do pause here because we have this conversation or some version of it every four years. but this is different because, as you said this is a third lane that comes out very clearly. it's not two, it's not bipartisan, bipolar, there's a new calendar, there are more states that have proportional delegate allotments so that it's harder to pile up in winner take all states all the delegates you need to get to that magic number of 1, 200 plus to win the nomination. so it's there. i'll throw out one last interesting scenario here. john kasich, governor of ohio. ohio is a winner take all state with lots of delegates. let's say john kasich stays in, wins his home states, pockets the delegates, wins your conventi

convention. maybe there's your broker because he has a big block of control and nobody else has a majority. >> ted, you brought this up earlier with the polling. this is such a nationalized electorate now. it used to be there were specific ways you campaigned in different states and some are trying to do it the old way. rick santorum is going to all 99 counties. >> hey, it worked last time. >> chris christie is doing town halls in new hampshire but for the most part this is a nationalized race and the more nationalized, the more likely you want people to see the reality show continue. >> and i think you have to admit you are essentially drooling on your shirt at the prospect. >> you famously walked away from convention coverage because there was no news. you'll come back! >> that's exactly right. that's exactly right. every single one of us is going to be saying "thank god, finally, an interesting convention." but you're right about those people out there. all the people who have been energized by the trump campaign are going to be very, very angry folk if they think trump is not well treated.

>> i've been disappoint sod many times because this is every political reporter's fantasy. let's put that out there. every four years it doesn't happen, the idea of a floor flight in cleveland sounds fantastic. but i do think you would be looking at a case of really seeing a lot of alienated republican voters, people in the primary who may end up feeling they've been cast aside if the tactics are too strong handed. >> look we see cruz rising in iowa in the "register" poll and the last time i went to a trump event he was the only person the trump supporters said they would even consider. a lot of them said if it's not trump it's nobody. and they were very dedicated to trump. he is the second choice. he's drafting off of trump. but now that means they'll go at each other and that will change the dynamic >> we've dn talking about cruz,

bush -- not cruz, rubio and trump. bush -- >> we don't talk about him any more. >> he've spent the most money than anybody and in iowa he's upside down. is it over, jerry? >> it's hard to see the path out of that ditch he's in. i don't know when it's over. a lot of money to spend on advertising still counts for something. the other name we haven't mentioned, i think there's a possibility of a chris christie moment in new hampshire because he's the guy who seized on the terrorist threat as effectively as anybody and it's very focussed in new hampshire so maybe there's one other wild card. >> and what you haven't mentioned, chuck, so far that cruz is almost as unpopular with the republican establishment as trump is. they're not going to be happen wi with cruz as an alternative. >> i want to switch gears here a little bit. there was a supreme court argument over an affirmative action case with the university of texas. the audio has been released is and let me play what justice

antonin scalia said that's caused a bit of controversy. take a listen. >> there are those who contend it does not benefit african-americans to get them into the university of texas where they do not do well as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a slower track school where they do well. >> ted, i couldn't help of thinking of "nightline." >> i was thinking of al campanus, too. both of them had the same problem. it's generational. he really doesn't think he is saying anything untoward. this is the kind of thing someone of antonin scalia's generation has been saying all his life. al campanus did the same thing. but being a supreme court justice means never having to say your sorry. that's it. he's said it. what's going to happen to him? nothing. >> it was so declarative.

there's a lot of anger. >> there is. but there's also -- my facebook feed exploded when this came out but it was so -- particularly among my black friends and younger black friends, the college-age ones. this just seemed to reinforce what they already thought he thought so i don't know that that changes anything. it's just saying something they all thought. he was just articulating. >> scalia being scalia? >> absolutely. as you say, there's no need to explain your comments if you're a security justice. interesting the way he framed it. "there are those who think that." >> and we do have conservatives saying he's getting a raw deal because he was playing devil's advocate and throwing out an argument that exists but isn't his argument. >> and the other part is pete williams will say this is why scalia is against any video in the courts, in i audio. he believe what is will happen is somebody will take a snippet and turn -- >> it's called accountability and that's what they don't want.

>> there you go. good for you. i'll let that be the last word there. we'll be back in 45 seconds with our end game segment including something you won't want to miss -- the presidential candidates talking about their favorite fictional president. because one of them decided to fight back. meanwhile, on "saturday night live," the return of a familiar face to save the republican party from donald trump. watch. >> poor jeb, you have to admit it's a good plot twist that i turned out to be the smart one. [ laughter ] of course, i wish you would have asked me about the exclamation point on the end of his name. look, i don't like the taste of broccoli. but it doesn't get an

end game time and the panel is here. ted we had you on for a bunch of other reasons, not the topic of your book but we should because it's a topic i feel like politicians will tell you is important, cyber terrorism, but they don't know how to talk about it on the campaign trail. >> the problem, is everybody is wondering about explosive vests and people with ak-47s. we live in the day in age when someone sitting in somalia or chile or perth, australia can be sitting there with a laptop and theoretically can take down one of our power grids or part of our infrastructure and do infinitely more damage. nobody talks about that. it's not a question of who comes into the united states. we're way passed that. >> republican anonymous?

what do you make of anonymous going after isis? >> it's beautiful. i like it. >> i will tell you who does talk about this with the "wall street journal." we talk to business leaders. business leaders are very worried. almost obsessed about this topic. >> j.p. morgan, for example, has spent about a billion dollars on cyber security. hasn't done them a whole lot of good. >> all of us work at media companies that are also panicked about this. >> absolutely. >> not just the media companies the. government -- the pentagon has had hack attempts and they've been very, very concerned. >> we've also used it aggressively ourselves. >> keith alexander the former director of the nsa likes to say every company in the united states falls into one of two categories, those that have been hacked and those that don't yet know it. >> that's scary. i'm going to lighten the mood here a little bit. we had a little bit of interesting -- we've done these sit downs with various candidates. we've asked them to do fun little things, what's your favorite concert, this or that.

so we asked them who's the favorite fictional president and we're going go "star wars" crazy. we decided to show the clips because harrison ford was asked to react to what he thought of donald trump talking about him as one of his favorite presidents via "air force one." watch his reaction. >> donald, it was a movie. it's not like this in real life. but how would you know? [ laughter ] >> gotta love it. >> there's the laugh line. there's the punch line. we'll see a lot of harrison ford when everybody goes "star wars" crazy. kwu look at what we've been asking and harrison ford is quite popular. take a look. >> oh, my god. i don't know. i guess harrison ford when he was on "air force one." >> the guy who on "the american president." that was a good film.

>> that was a liberal but he was certainly -- michael douglas did a fabulous job. the movie "dave" was hysterical and i enjoyed that as well. >> my most favorite guy is harrison ford. people have said that i look like him. do you think i do? [ laughter ] >> oh, jerry. >> how could nobody say morgan freeman? >> nobody said morgan freeman. >> the voice of god. >> don't we think republican candidates sit there and they want the tough guy. >> they all want to fly a plane. >> they want to be on air force one. >> i'll tell you a quick funny story. my old friend and abc colleague barry was talking to gore vidal who said he got a call from a hollywood actor's agent who wanted to play the president in one of vidal's movies and vidal said "no, it's just not credible." that actor of course, was -- >> ronald reagan? >> ronald reagan. [ laughter ] >> can i say in the spirit of this fact-checking project, no, john kasich, you do not look like harrison ford.

>> ouch. that isn't fair. >> i don't know. i can see it. >> come on now. >> i didn't say he was lug ugly. i just said he didn't look like harrison ford. >> i want to go to rahm emanuel. the mayor of chicago has had a tough time. i have this theory, helene, that there would be more calls for his resignation if, number one, he didn't have friends in high places, president obama, hillary clinton, and the governor of illinois even though he's a republican who's a personal friend. all three of those people if any called for his resignation he'd be out. >> that's absolutely true. but that's because the people most angry about this are the people who support president obama and who naturally gravitate toward the allies of emanuel but this is a tough one for him. i don't -- i'm going to be very curious to see how he survives it. >> can i tell you, we spent a lot of time talking about the divisions in the republican party but the democratic party is also deeply divided and rahm

was in trouble, he got into the runoff for chicago mayor before this came out. it's because of closing the schools and pensions and things that put him in the establishment wing, the corporatist wing of the democratic party. there's a rising liberal tide in this country. it's powering bernie sanders. it's increasingly aggressive so they were mad at rahm and this is the spark. >> she brings a good point. rahm is a creature of the '90s democratic party. >> remember, that means he worked in the clinton white house in the '90s. >> a bill clinton white house. >> and he knows how the go into damage control mode. >> does he? >> well, i think so. we'll find out. but you can either resign -- and he doesn't strike me as a resigning kind of guy -- be recalled and i don't think that happens here and i think he struggles through. >> but it feels as even if he wants to leave, can he? >> if he wants to leave? >> no, lead. i don't know if he can. if anybody will listen to him. >> and replace and yohiu replace him with what? >> that's always the issue. >> i think he stays, i think he

fights. >> there's no doubt he's going to fight, but can he get anything done? >> i don't know. i think that's going to be a tough call, which may end up being the reason why he leaves. >> the tough things have to be done in chicago. nobody's going to jump up and do those tough things because it's a recipe for trouble even if you're not in trouble. >> you can't help, chicago is so much different. every other city as much as we're having the problems every other city's police department doesn't seem to have the same problems as chicago these days. that's all for today, we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."

it's monday, december 14th. right now on "first look" political tunes are shifting in the polls as donald trump unleashes on ted cruz, ahead of tomorrow's next gop debate. a controversial police shooting in los angeles was excessive force used? we'll show you the video. from cherry blossoms in d.c. to ice cream in the big apple. more northwest flooding and a snow blast in the middle. what's mind this crazy weather? plus, simple acts of kindness on the third anniversary of the newtown elementary school shooting. still perfect after week 14 in the nfl and a possible new player in the race for president. >> this is