i've been waiting for years. nobody does it right. and frankly now we're going to do it right. >> the one last area i want to get into in this debate is the fact that the biggest driver of our debt is entitlements, which is 60% of all federal spending. now the committee for federal -- responsible federal budget has looked at both of your plans and they say neither of you has a serious plan that is going to solve the fact that medicare is going to run out of money in the 2020s. social security is going to run out of money in the 2030s. and at that time, recipients are going to take huge cuts in their benefits. so in effect, the final question i want to ask you in this regard, and let me start with you, mr. trump, would president trump make a deal to save medicare and social security that included both tax increases and benefit cuts in effect a grand bargain on entitlements? >> i'm cutting tax. we're going to grow the economy. it's going grow at a record rate. >> but that's not going to help entitlements. >> it's going to totally help you.

and one thing we have to do, repeal and replace the disaster known as obamacare. it's destroying our country. it's destroying businesses. we have to repeal and replace obama care. you take a look at the kind of numbers that that will cost us in the year '17. it is a disaster. if with don't repeal and replace. it's probably going to die of its own weight. but obama care has to go. it's -- the premiums are going up 60, 70, 80%. next year they're going to go up over 100%. and i'm really glad that the premiums have started at least the people see what is happening because she wants to keep obama care. and she wants to make it's even worse. and it can't get any worse. bad healthcare at the most expensive we have to repeal and replace. >> secretary clinton, same question. at this point, social security and medicare are going to run out. will you as president consider a grand bargain, a deal that

includes both tax increases and benefit cuts to try to save both porgrams? i want to enhance benefits for low income workers and for women who have been disadvantaged by the current social security system. dire consequences for social the affordable care act extended disadvantaged by the current social security system. but what donald is proposing with the mats s massive tax cuts

will result in a $20 trillion national debt. that will have dire consequences for social security and medicare. i'll say something about the affordable care act which he wants to appeal. the affordable care act extended the solvency of the medicare trust fund. so if he repeals it, our medicare problem gets worse. >> your husband disagrees with you. >> the long-term health care drivers. we've got to get costs down, increase value, emphasize wellness. i have a plan for doing that. and i think that we will be able to get entitle spending under control by with more resource and smarter decisions. >> this is the final time probably to both of your delight that you're going to be on stage together in this campaign. i would like to end it on a positive note, that you had not agreed to closing statements. but it seems to me in a funny way that might make it more interesting, because you haven't prepared closing statements. so i would like you each to take -- we're going to put a clock up, a minute, as the final question and the final debate to

tell the american people why they should elect you to be the next president. this is another new mini segment. secretary clinton, it's your turn to go first. >> well, i would like to say to everyone watching tonight, that i'm reaching out to all americans. democrats, republicans and independents, because we need everybody to help make our country what it should be to grow the economy, to make it fairer, to make it work for everyone. we need your talents, your skills, your commitment, your energy, your ambition. i've been privileged to see the presidency up close. and i know the awesome responsibility of protecting our country and the incredible opportunity of working to try to make life better for you. i have made the cause of children and families really my life's work. that's what my mission will be in the presidency. i will stand up for families against powerful interests, against corporations.

i will do everything that i can to make sure that you have good jobs with rising incomes, that your kids have good educations from preschool through college. i hope you will give me a chance to serve as your president. >> secretary clinton, thank you. mr. trump? >> she is raising the money from the people she wants to control. it doesn't work that way. when i started this campaign, i started it very strongly. it's called make america great again. we're going to make america great. we have a depleted military. it has to be helped. it has to be fixed. we have the greatest people on earth in our military. well don't take care off our veterans. we take care of illegal immigrants better than we take care of our military. that can't happen. our policemen and women are disrespected. we need law and order, but we need justice too. our inner cities are a disaster. you get shot walking to the store. they have no education, they have no jobs. i will do more for african americans and latinos than she can ever do in ten lifetimes. all she has done is talk to the

african americans and to the latinos. but they get the vote and then they come back. they say we'll see you in four years. we are going to make america strong again. and we are going to make america great again. and it has to start now. we cannot take four more years of barack obama. and that's what you get when you get her. >> thank you, both. secretary clinton, hold on just a moment, folks. secretary clinton, after trump, i want to thank you both for participating in all three of these debates that brings to an end this year's debate sponsored by the commission on presidential debates. we want to thank the university of nevada las vegas and its students for having us. now the decision is up to you. >> well, millions have already voted election day, november 8th is just 20 days away. one thing everyone here can agree on. we hope you will go vote. it's one of the honors and obligations of living in this great country. thank you and good night. [ applause ]

>> the weightiest discussion yet of policy as hillary clinton comes down to shake chris wallace's hand. donald trump remains behind his lectern. it looks like there won't be interaction between the two of them. it started with a graphic discussion of abortion, but did feature along the way actual discussions of isis, of nuclear weapons, of the economy, of putin and wikileaks. and while yes, some people will find this to be the alec baldwin full employment act of 2016, the disqualifying moment for americans who believe in and respect a peaceful transition is of power came along with an audience gas in the room when donald trump refused under direct questioning to say he

would honor the outcome of the election, the will of the voters. he said, quote, i will look at it at the time. i will keep you in suspense. a few minutes ago, and a few minutes before the close of the debate, at one point he called hillary clinton, quote, such a nasty woman. not sure quite what we witnessed in terms of democracy tonight, rachel. but it held our attention. >> the formal part of this campaign is now over. we will not see these two candidates together except possibly at the al smith dinner tomorrow night in washington, where they're both expected to turn up and make comedic remarks -- or in new york, excuse me, where they're both expected to turn up and make comedic remarks. that's not like this. this really is the end of the formal competition being acted out by the two of them in the same place. what is left to us to vote, what chris wallace said there at the end is true. in terms of what just happened here, though, my observation was

that this was sort of a normal debate for the first 25 minutes. and then 25 minutes into it, it started to break down. hillary clinton i think stayed the same throughout the full 90 plus minutes. donald trump at about 25 minutes in started gritting his teeth, started grabbing his microphone over and over again. and it started with an interjection. started saying "wrong, wrong, wrong" into the microphone again like he had before. by the end he was literally shouting over her while she continued to speak in a normal voice. he interjected as brian noted at the end with "such a nasty woman." i do think that it's inarguable that the moment of this debate, maybe the moment of this whole portion of the campaign will be when chris wallace made it as clear as he possibly could. i want to ask you here on the stage tonight, do you make the commitment that you will absolutely, sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of this election. trump said i will look at it at the time. i'm not looking at anything now. i'll look at it at the time. what i've seen, what i've seen

is so bad. he then followed it up with another question. sir, there is a tradition in the country. one of the prides of this country is a peaceful transition of power. attend of the campaign, the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together, in part for good of the country. are you saying you're not prepared to commit to that principle? trump, what i'm saying is i'll tell you at the time. i'll keep you in response. hillary clinton responding saying well, let me respond to that, because that is who fight. it's hard to extract the policy fights out of an atmosphere created by that moment. >> first time a major party candidate has done this, has said this. making history prior to an election. to say the result of the election is rigged. chris matthews, heading up our coverage in las vegas. chris? >> well, it's very tense here tonight. it was tense here with the students outside during the

pregame tonight. i thought it was interesting that both of these candidates were playing, each of them in their turn to their constituencies. trump was talking to the gun own. >> the second amendment people rather consistently. to the evangelicals with his pro-life position. extraordinarily graphic language in opposing partial birth abortion, long-term abortion, talking about the last couple of days. i don't think there are many procedures at this point. but very strong on that. also on immigration. hillary clinton is also in an airplane mode, if you will. they both basically were saying stuff they said before. all this was old material in both cases. but i thought the really graphic moment is when donald trump got into the pro-life moment. i think he was going after the evangelicals. hillary won the debate tonight for the following reason. the real battleground are women in the suburbs. republican, moderate women who tend to vote republican because of their tax bracket. they're not for big cities or big on education generally. hillary talked about guns and

gun control to protect toddlers. she talked about her work with children and families, everyone since marion wright adelman. all the time she was talking to women on abortion rights, on guns, on every issue was talking to women in the suburbs, she never lost track of where the battleground is. women in the suburbs. trump was simply defending his turf among evangelicals and rural people. i think hillary went off the disputed territory tonight, and i think she gained every time they had a conversation. so close debate. best performance by trump so far. but hillary won. that's my thinking. >> chris matthews in las vegas. steve schmidt is here with us in new york. steve, the moment you feared, the direct answer to a direct question about the result of this election on november 8th has happened. >> it sure has. and i think it's a disqualifying moment. it's a moment of clear and present danger to our constitutional order. to the republic.

it's unprecedented in the history of the country. constitutional officers like paul ryan i think are now at an hour where they're called to step forward to exhibit political courage, to put the country first and to communicate very clearly that we have a legitimate elections in this country. and that is how we choose our leaders. i agree with chris, that donald trump was more coherent, at least in the first part of the debate than he has in the previous debates. >> first half hour, yeah. >> but clearly he was provoked throughout. he became angrier. he lost control. and i think as you look at the end of the debate when he says "you nasty woman," his anger is such. and what we know from the first debate, what comes next from the rounds of tweeting and the statements that will follow on

this, and does it keep him moving in a trajectory that will continue the republican slide in the polls. certainly on the issue of immigration he did himself no good in states like arizona, in nevada, in georgia, in texas, which is narrowing up. he was incoherent again on national security issues. he was like an old man in the park feeding squirrels, arguing with himself on the question of -- on the question of mosul. he was incoherent on the question of aleppo. and just somebody who has not prepared himself over the course of the campaign on these vital national security issues. but what this debate is about, it's about one thing. this came down to one thing in 90 minutes is you have a candidate, one of the nominees of the two political parties who has broken a foundational political compact. and this is a moment for

everybody involved in america's national life that i think is one of urgency. >> i think that's right. i think that's the headline and that's the bed of the story too in a way. it was a shocking moment, really, to be asked in a debate, okay, you played around with this idea of it's rigged and i'm not going to -- i don't know what i'm going to do. but in this setting, in the final debate, to be asked a direct question twice, and to refuse to commit to abide by the decision of the american people in a free and fair election was just an unthinkable moment. and i think it goes beyond speaker ryan's responsibility. i think it's majority leader mcconnell. everyone, really. republicans and democrats alike need to make clear that, no, that's wrong. that's unacceptable.

that's not the way we do -- we conduct ourselves. and that's not what our democracy is about. >> i think it's going to be a hard test for them to pass, though. because it doesn't, honestly come out of nowhere. it's unprecedented for a presidential candidate to be there. but the republican party for the last especially the last eight years has been hyping the idea of voter fraud and stolen elections. go back to the third debate between john mccain and barack obama. he raised this issue of a.c.o.r.n., as if a.c.o.r.n. was then the menace that was going to steal the election from him. and john mccain was not a crazy candidate. and there is this -- this comes from -- donald trump has weaponized it. but this comes from a place in republican politicking over the last eight years in particular that is going to make it very hard for them to stand up for the integrity of the elections. because they've been scare mongering about it themselves for their own purposes. >> we're in unchartered territory. >> he went way beyond. >> that's right.

>> by miles and miles. >> no major figure has gone there. they simply have not gone there ever. >> but for democrat, if this were a democratic candidate doing that, democratic -- other democratic leaders repudiating that, it would be a much easier thing. the republican resistance to repudiating it comes that some of this has its roots in mainstream republican politics. >> what if marco rubio came out -- has come out and has taken a stand. so what do you believe? >> do you believe in this or not? >> steve, does that make you crazy that i said that? >> no. i think that it's a bit of a stretch. it is so unprecedented. it is so outside the norms. there were legitimate issues around a.c.o.r.n. and other groups that were worthy of discussion. but nobody contested the legitimacy of the outcome of the election. this is not an attack on a group of the democratic party that is

doing something that it shouldn't be doing. this is an attack at a foundational level on the institutions of democracy. in this country. extraordinary moment also in this debate on the question of vladimir putin. >> yeah. >> a hostile foreign power. >> yeah. >> engaged in trying to effect the outcome of the election. she could not have been more correct as she articulated what was at stake. and he fumbled around on that answer. and again, a republican nominee for president of the united states, one of the two people, as chris wallace pointed out, the commander in chief, the president-elect in 20 days unable to condemn because he sees a partisan advantage from it. the actions of a foreign power trying to effect the outcome of the election. we're just -- we are so far -- out of normalcy on this that there is really not words to describe it. >> there is no rule book to get from the shelf.

lawrence o'donnell among the many people watching along with us. lawrence? >> just so many things to be astounded by in this debate. i agree with everything that has been said so far about this unprecedented nature of someone saying now that he is unwilling to concede if the other side get morse votes and more electoral votes. but also just outright falsehoods by donald trump. he actually said at a certain point that hillary clinton wants to double your taxes. she wants to take the top income tax rate up 3 percentage points. that's the hillary clinton tax increase. you can go on with these things. but i thought one of the most effective things that hillary clinton got off, which donald trump never answered was when she talked about him being in that hotel of his today in las vegas surrounded by all that chinese steel that he used to build that hotel. she took that shot twice.

and the first time she took it was a clearly a moment she was ready for, where she laid it out very, very carefully. donald trump was then given a chance to respond. he did not say one word about using chinese steel that n that hotel. hillary clinton then slipped it in a little later in the debate. there just wasn't a moment that i saw in this debate where donald trump had an advantage over hillary clinton. they have a disagreement on the supreme court, which was the very first issue brought up. that's a disagreement that most voters know about going into this debate. they both staked out their positions clearly on that. and then after that, it was nothing but a romp by hillary clinton all the way through here. >> lawrence, we also noted the visual while we were talking. the two extremes. donald trump had a very intense huddle at the suv door with his wife and his running mate mike pence. mr. bannon was off to the side.

>> david bossie there as well. >> and hillary clinton remained in the venue. she was seen in our cameras high-fiving supporters at one point, a very different visual message from the two. and i think as we have pointed out, as the night goes on, we'll learn and hear more from the trump campaign, if not the candidate himself. james carville in the big easy, watching this debate. james, your reaction. >> well, first of all, like you, i was struck with the visual right after the debate ended in which when she walked and shook hands and her facial expressions and how trump just stood there. i was kind of struck by the same thing you were. in terms of the question, did this change the race in any fundamental way, no, it did not. the question we were asking early, did it stop trump's hemorrhaging? i don't know. i kind of think maybe it didn't. there was no change at all in his strategy. there was no change in his demeanor.

and i agree with what everybody said so far that he would not accept election return is the headline. it ought to be the discussion we have tonight, the discussion tomorrow and from now until election day. so, i mean, quite honestly, i thought the visual after the debate, i totally agree with you on that. and i don't know if he was even able to stop his hemorrhaging tonight. and it was a remarkable moment back and forth in the debate. but it was still the same trump. >> nicolle wallace has rejoined us. nicole, i keep saying it. first major party presidential candidate to say prior to the election that the results are rigged. and tonight to repeat that, he will judge it in realtime, wants to stay in suspense. >> it swamps everything else. and, you know, he basically tonight laid in his own coffin with a hammer and a nail and pounded in the lid. lights out in american politics when you say something like that. the tragedy for his base of support, and his base of support likes him very much.

and there were a lot of things that they will like about tonight's performances. he got in some comments about the supreme court, about the kind of judges that he would pick which when i was in ohio talking to undecided voters and pro-life women of faith who care about that stuff, that's the single issue they're voting on. so he had some nice moments. a for him, this performance represented real growth from his first debate. so his coaches have done a decent job with him. they just didn't have much to work with. and that single comment will define the rest of this election, all 20 days of it that we have left. and it is a disqualifying comment to say you will not accept the results of american democracy, the beacon of democracy the world over. lights out moment for him. she also, it shouldn't swamp the performance that she turned in. i heard from republicans tonight who also thought it was her best performance. he is getting better, but she is showing how much preparation

enhances and helps tell the story of who she is. and i thought she started to make a turn tonight, started to talk about the kind of president she would be. and i thought i heard some things that what she might get done in the first 100 days there are some republicans talking privately about being willing to work with her. he was better than he has ever been but he disqualified himself in that moment. >> here is a question for you, knowing you don't speak for 2 entire infrastructure, and chris matthews wants in on this as well. where are ryan, mcconnell, mccain, romney tomorrow morning? will we hear from people? >> they're in the padded room i just left. >> at the bar i would assume. that's where i would. >> the republicans in the race for starters, will we hear from people who will put their heads up in live fire and say what you just said? >> mike pence and ivanka his daughter have condemned or disagree with his statement. and i have this little insight

from some of the others there is a public divide because mike would accept the results. mike pence said that to you 20 minutes before the debate started. so there was a public divide

figures who have already said russia. >> that's usually my role. when you go high, i go petty. >> but v if republicans are just looking at the numbers and they're thinking all right, donald trump is set to lose in a barry goldwater style route, i

economically stressed out and everything. on this very same discussion of now what of the leadership. >> well, you know, a couple of things are going on here. they're interesting in the republican culture. but i think the big question is the apples and oranges problem here. to say that irregularity, especially in big cities and deny that is crazy because there are occasionally. but the idea that they would affect the results is insane. cities like philadelphia producing 85% for obama in the most recent election. they produced 450,000 for johnson, for humphrey. 330,000 for kennedy. these pluralities are

overwhelming. what disturbs republicans in the suburbs and the rural texas, big cities do have the oomph. the suburbs around the big cities, you have 36% advantage report differences with trump losing to hillary clinton. the democrats are winning the suburbs. so it's not just the inner city, the big cities. so what you're really talking about, i don't think anybody should get in the idea that all elections are perfectly clean. teddy white says there is some states right on the mark. what people intended. other things go on. but the idea they would affect the results in a presidential election or electoral college is really dishonest. trump can say i'm not going to honor any election where there is any irregularities. that's just dishonest because there is still a result. we shouldn't get involved and say all elections are totally clean therefore we should accept the results. we should say the results overwhelm the numbers there is no question about who wins pennsylvania this year. and i think the democrats have also had their questions over the years with election results. look at ohio back in '04 with

the company putting out those election machines. they're still being questioned by people who wonder, wait a minute, what happened with those machines? certainly in florida there are questions about how the supreme court got involved and how that decision came down. so you can always argue about it. but the results in terms of numbers, there is no justification for trump saying this election depends on a pluperfect account. no it doesn't. the big numbers are going to be clear coming from the big cities and this time from the suburbs. he doesn't know what he is talking about right now. that's the problem. >> i think, chris, you're exactly right. and thing is a real key to what he is doing here, with the fact that he talks about the cities that his poll watchers need to watch are philadelphia and detroit and chicago. he keeps going on about chicago. you know what is not up for grabs this year? chicago. illinois is not going to be a contested state. whatever happens in chicago, it's not going to make a difference. but when he says that, he says

that particularly when he is not really organizing poll watchers to go to these places, he is creating in the minds of his supporters around the country this idea that there are these people in inner cities all over the country, and you know who they are, and they're the ones who are stealing the election from you good people out there. nixon did this beautifully all through the '60s. in 1966, the people of iowa chicago were going to come ransack the streets of iowa and steal farm kids from iowa. they had a racial paranoia they stoked for law and order and to collection the election. there is a tapestry of this, a way we have done it. trump, i think, has weaponized it. >> rachel, the problem is the republican party faces in the big cities, which tend to sort in liberals, not just african-americans or hispanic. people that live in big cities want to be in a diverse environment. they like the feel of it, the enrichment of it.