wallace. she will be back at this desk tomorrow. i will see you tomorrow at my usual time slot at 10:00 a.m. for now, over to "mtp daily" starting now. chuck todd, the rare chuck todd hand over. very nice. nice to talk to the chief. >> ditto, man. good to see you. >> get back to that crazy white house. good luck there. if it's thursday, it's time to face the tax man. republicans are stepping on the gas to drive a tax bill across the finish line. >> congress acts by christmas, people are going to see gains very soon. >> we have to do that, and everybody knows it. >> but could the tax bill wind up being this year's version of obamacare 2010? plus, why so many people are asking, is speaker ryan quitting? >> i'm not. >> finally, neutralizing net neutrality. >> look, the trump administration supports the fcc's effort to roll back burdensome regulations. >> the winners and losers in the

battle to control the future of the internet. this is "mtp daily" and it starts right now. and good evening. i'm chuck todd. still here in new york city and welcome to "mtp daily." folks we know a democratic wave is building but could the gop tax plan make it a tsunami? demming learned in 2010 one way to turn it into an tsunami pass an unpartisan bill that upseats the other party. what did republicans learn from that? apparently little as yogi barra said, feels like dave shaview wi deja vu. and a tax bill that could upend

the u.s. tax bill. it repeals the obamacare mandate. start with public opinion. 26% approves compared to the whopping 55% disapproving in the quinnipiac poll. 2010, obamacare also unpopular when signed into law. 36% said a good idea versus a near majority 48%, very bad idea. right now the political environment is souring on republicans and democrats are energized. 2010, the political environment was souring on democrats. and it was republicans that were energized. right now republicans are the ones trying to jam legislation through in part because their majority is suddy in peril after a democrat won in deep red alabama. back in 2010, democrats were reeling after they lost a stunning special election to a republican in deep blue massachusetts. this afternoon the gop tax bill hit an unexpected snag when marco rubio came out against it. he wants a bigger expansion of the child tax credit.

and now mike lee, he's undecided. the same concerns as rubio. folks, this is just like what happened with obamacare in 2010. when margins are this thin, senators threaten to hold the bill hostage unless they get what they want. cornhusker kickback, anyone? maked it filled with more land mines, morecomplicated and harder to fix later on. just ask president obama. and repealing mandate, and wealthy americans appear to be getting a big tax cut and middle class americans, not so big, if at all. what will happen to republicans? will history repeat itself, if they pass this bill. if it does, could be in big trouble. as i mentioned back in 2010, democrats shellacked lost a whopping 63 seats in the house and 6 seats in the senate.

joining me now, one of the republicans conferees on the tax bill. pennsylvania senator pat toomey. welcome back to the show. >> thanks for having me, chuck. >> let me ask you this about comparing what you guys are doing with the tax bill here right after a special election victory for the other party, and the eerie similarities many see with scott brown in 2010 and you yourself came in on the 2010 wave. do you see any perils here of pushing this tax bill on a partisan line during this tough political environment, considering how much that backfired on your friends on the other side of the aisle eight years ago? >> no. actually i don't, chuck. i think the peril would be failure to get something done here. republicans were elected to, really, to be in complete control of the elected government, to get big things accomplished, and we had a terrible setback on health care. we're not going to have that on tax reform, and when we get this

done, people are going to see that they get a take-home pay raise because their tax bill is going down, and i'm convinced they're going to see a real boom in the economy. so, no. i think the peril would be if we fail to get this done. >> i'm going to do something here. i want to play candidate pat toomey for senator pat toomey. take a listen. >> sure. >> all right. >> the only thing bipartisan about that bill was opposition to it, and little wonder when you consider what's in it. our health insurance premiumless go up. that's not what this bill should be doing and then the spending. well over $1 trm over the next ten years of money we don't have, creating debt we can't afford. >> okay. i know you're not going to like this. the tax bill, all partisan, opposition, technically bipartisan. does it raise deficits? at least three different studies, two used dynamic scoring, all that claim that it raises the deficit over ten years and because of the repeal of the mandate, there's the cbo

believes premiums on health care go up. what would you, candidate toomey say to senator toomey? >> say the same thing i'm saying right now, chuck. that is a terribly badly flawed analogy. look, this is not this disastrous health care bill that mandates that americans buy a product that they don't want at a price they can't afford. it's nothing of the sort. it's tax relief. it is moving the tax burden. >> why is this bill unpopular? >> let's be clear. my democratic colleagues have done a great job mischaracterizing this. listen to the comments as recently as yesterday claiming, insisting, this is somehow a middle class tax increase. yet in the senate, on the senate floor, i'm sorry, one of them offered an amendment as it applies to low and mcincoiddle income, make it permanent. no. every single one voted for it.

they've mischaracterized it. the proof is clear. early next year people's withholdings will go home, take-home pay go up and when they see that happen it's going to make very clear how beneficial this is. >> there's a couple of senators, one is threatening a no vote. marco rubio. mike lee calls himself undecided. they both have been the champions of expanding the earned income tax credit. wanted it in the senate bill. didn't happen. i understand why senator rubio is frustrated. he was just trying to get a less than 1% increase in the corporate tax rate from 20 to i think 20.94 to expand the child tax credit. voted down. now all of a sudden ceahe sees higher than proposed still no expanded tax credit. where are you on this and how do you get senator rubio to yes if it isn't in it?

the earned income tax limit, i think you meant the child tax credit. >> i'm sorry. yes. >> we take that up to $2,000 per child. expanded considerably. we take the amount refundable in the senate bill to $1,100. >> what about folks without children? another part of this? expanding it beyond that? >> if you don't have children you don't get the child tax credit. i don't think marco suggested people without children should get the child tax credit. this is meant for people with children, and it is an increase. a significant increase in the child tax credit. i understand senator rubio and mike lee would like to have an even larger child tax credit, and that's something that's under discussion. under discussion with them on that. we'll see where that ends, but my -- i'm cautious, more than cautious, optimistic that both mike lee and senator rubio willish supporting this package in the end. of course, you have to check with them to be sure. >> you know, the democrats relented in 2010 and decided not

to rush, let scott brown have his say on the health care bill. why shouldn't doug jones get a shot at having his say on the tax bill? >> look, we've been working on this a long time. we all campaigned on this. president trump made this tax relief and tax reform the centerpiece of his campaign. the election occurred in 2016. we've been working on it ever since, and it's ready to go. now's the time to pass it. >> what are you telling your friends in bucks county? my guess maybe constituents, donors who look at this bill and say, hey, my tax bill might go up, because -- >> yeah. >> the state and local tax deductions is gone. the property tax exemption is capped. >> right. >> and they don't see a tax cut here. what are you telling them? >> yeah. so -- it's a good point. right? so virtually everybody who's in working class family, middle income family, virtually all of those folks will get a

significant tax reduction. there are a handful of wealthy people, high-income earners. if they live in a high tax jurisdiction they're not necessarily, might have a modest tax increase. what i hope is that on balance, other things will work to their advantage. we do have a reduction in the tax on pass-through incomes. maybe they have investments in pass-through -- equity market has responded massively to this -- you saw the huge rally that occurred from the time we were able to pass this in our budget committee. so people benefit in a variety of ways, but there are a handful of high-income folk whose will have higher taxes. >> were you always for getting rid of this exemption on state and local taxes or just something you're accepting because it's the only way to get it -- seems like it's an uneven targeting? almost targeting blue states? >> no. it's very good policy and i've always been in favor of a dramatic simplification. a much lower rate, it's a

policy, current law, the current ain't ability to deduct state and local tax a subsidy from low tax jurisdictions to high tax jurisdictions, i don't know why a count any pennsylvania has to pay hyper taxes so people who live in the upper side of manhattan, a beautiful penthouse, exorbitant taxes get a lower result. this is a step in the direction of fairness. >> a lot of working class people live in new york city, too, sir, but i take your -- >> and are not subject to the 10%, 12%, 14% income tax. the higher income people are. >> leave it there. always fun to talk -- you enjoy talking tax policy. >> absolutely. >> this is great stuff. >> actually get to focus on substance. appreciate it. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for is having moo e, chuck. bringing in another tax and budget nerd. that's a compliment.

leading the senate committee in 2016, senator van hollen, like toomey. i think you'd love to debate tax policy, maybe not everybody wants to watch that. i tease, because it doesn't have the flashiness sometimes of some of these other topics we discuss. let me start with the tax bill. senator toomey believes that once people see moren in their paycheck, this bill becomes, if not more popular, at least less toxic. i have to say, if you see more money in your paycheck you may be right. do you worry than as far as the political environment? >> hey, chuck, i would love to see more people get more money in their paychecks, and the going to be here debating tax policy with pat toomey. we've done it before, and he's just dead wrong on this. he said only a handful of folks in the middle class will see a tax increase. that's just not true. the non-partisan professionals, the joint committee on taxation,

have said millions of middle class families are going to pay higher taxes, and for what? for this big corporate tax giveaway, which is permanent, while those americans who actually do get some tax cut, it's going to be small, and temporary. let me give you one example. foreign stock holders represent 35% of the stock holders of american corporations. in the year 2019, they're going to get a windfall of about $30 billion. which is going to be more than every single household under $100,000 in every state that voted for donald trump. so how is that america first? how is that middle class first? you've got people paying money that's going to foreign stockholders and those who are getting tax cuts, it's less than foreign stock holders. >> set this up. do you believe the corporate tax rate needed to be lowered? if you were going to lower it you had to make a permanent?

>> i thought the corporate tax should be lowered without increasing the debt. in other words, some corporations today pay the top rate of 35%, and some pay 0%. so we should reform that, but that's not what the republican bill does. what the republican bill does is provide this huge corporate tax cut and the bill will be picked up by millions of middle class taxpayers, as you indicated, huge increases in the national debt, which our republican colleagues spent many years talking about how dangerous that was. and by increases in premiums in the health care exchanges. so how is that putting middle class folks first? meanwhile, the very wealthiest americans are going to see a huge tax windfall. i think the reason the american public is already souring on this is even though republicans have tried to jam this through in a shourd pert of time, the public has caught on to this and don't like what they say. >> talk about 2018 a little bit fn and what you view as the message of the doug jones race

in particular, 2017 overall. charlie cook was on the show yesterday and said hogwash. democrats don't need a message in 2018. you can run simply as a referendum on the party and power. do you concur? do you think democrats don't actually need a message in 2018 to win? >> chuck, in the mid-term election it will primarily be a referendum on the party in power. president trump, republicans in control in the house and senate. that will be the dominant theme. it was in 2010 and in 2006 and there's a lot not to like. like this tax bill. like their effort to blow up the affordable care act, but democrats have put forward a message. you heard doug jones down in alabama talking about how it's important to protect children's health insurance. in alabama, doug jones said he was for tax reform. he's just for tax reform that actually does lift wages for the middle class. so democrats are running on kitchen table issues, but you've got a lot of republicans, like

roy moore, who are running on this divisive, polarized trump politics, and i think people are going to remember that donald trump went down to the florida/alabama border and said that roy moore reflects republican party values. >> do you think you can still use roy moore as a 2018 issue? >> there were lots of republican senate candidates who either supported roy moore or refused to take a position, and i think given -- >> you're going to remind voters of that, if necessary? >> we will remind voter of that just like we will remind them six months from now that republicans promised they were going get big increases in their paychecks from this corporate tax cut when, in fact, corporations will use the money for stock bibarqs and more money for shareholders. all on the table. >> 58 house democrats have recently voted to advance articles of impeachment. are you cheering them on or do you want them to tap the brakes on this? >> look, i think the best way to

rein in the trump agenda is at the ballot box in 2018. it's by having results like we saw in hall al. it's like seeing results we saw in virginia and other states. >> so you don't want to run -- translation, you don't think impeachment should be the primary message of the democratic party in 2018? >> no, i do not. i think our message needs to be all the broken promises donald trump made when it came to the economy, like this tax bill. remember, actually, his number one example of how the tax code was broken was the big carried interest giveaway to fat cats on wall street. he said that hedge fund managers were getting away with murder. guess what? this bill, 500 pages, doesn't fix that. right? big giveaways to corporations, they don't reform the carried interest hedge fund loophole. so these are going to be big issues. i think the democrats need to focus on those issues going into 2018, and alabama and virginia

were good signs. >> handful of your colleagues in the senate, from bernie sanders, corey booker, kirsten gillibrand and handful of others calling on the president to resign over the sexual misconduct allegations against him that have come forward over the last couple of years. where are you on this? >> so, chuck, i believe the president is unfit for office, and i would love to see the president resign, but, again, i think the best way to address the harm that trump agenda is doing to the country and all the broken promises is in 2018. that has to be our focus. that is our focus, obviously, at the dscc, good senator virginia and alabama, and i think you're seeing as you indicated a lot of grass roots momentum. not just democrats but from independents around a lot of moderate republicans. >> senator van hollen, leave it

there. thanks for coming on. always appreciate it. >> thank you. up next, blake farenthold says he's going to go -- just not yet. congressman embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal says he won't run for re-election, but why isn't he resigning immediately?

welcome back. another member of congress facing sexual harassment charges, farenthold says he will not seek re-election next year. he used $84,000 in taxpayer money to settle a sexual harassment claim. he vowed to pay the money back to the u.s. treasury. last night another one of are farenthold's former aides told cnn he fostered a verbally and hostile work environment. allegations the congressman alluded to today announcing his decision to retire.

>> i've never served in public office before. i had no idea how to run a congressional office. and as a result, i allowed a workplace culture to take root in my office that was too permissive and decidedly unprofessional. it accommodated destructive gossip, offhand comments, off-color jokes and behavior that in general was less than professional. >> farenthold would not answer questions today about whether he might resign rather than serve out the rest of his term which ends in january 2019. >> congressman, are you going to resign? >> check my facebook page. >> do you deny the latest allegations against you? >> i -- there have been oh many i don't know what all is going on. >> why not resign right away? more people shop online

for the holidays than ever before. (clapping) and the united states postal service delivers more of those purchases to homes than anyone else in the country. ( ♪ ) because we know, even the smallest things are sometimes the biggest. even the smallest things i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

welcome back. the katy tur back with us, and for your dad, professor at princeton university and msnbc contributor. sorry i forgot the junior there. bill, start with you. you helped defeat hillary care. income, you and i first met -- sort of new each other i was at the hot line and you were writing crazy memos. >> doing excellent work. >> see a pattern -- t. >> it is interesting to see a partisan bill jammed through, in the dark, not in the dark, sosht sort of last minute, do you see how they're going about this? >> the actual result of the bill in the real world we'll see. the stock market already built in expectations and lags a little bit if people look at their stubs in march or look at

their returns later on an according to returns, gee, i'm not seeing money over this, they could end up saying, what was that about? rushed it through. is it really working? no. if more benefit than not, they've talked themselves into this. it's an inside the beltway thing. we can't go home without delivering something. to my point, go home. done nothing wrong, unemployment 4.3%. keeping things on a stable course, not going to do something rash and foolish but politicians cannot convince themselves that could be a winning message. >> same thing happened with democrats. gone too far. we have to get it done. guess what? the public will like it once we're done passing it. like a -- eight years later. not eight months later. >> of course. >> and congress does that. >> exactly. all your health insurance premiums are going up. will you see the same amount of benefit in other areas of your

life you may see in the tax return? remember the individual income taxes are temporary, not permanent. and this is going to be made even more unpopular when democrats can run using certain lawmakers comes out and admitting this is about their republican donors. >> and i don't know if you saw, the ad we found of pat toomey. one of those, oh, my god. you couldn't have made it up. >> right. >> with every criticism he had of health care, it looked like a re-do. >> be clear, these folks aren't em cumbered by the threat of hypocrisy. >> no politician is. >> 27% approval. no necessary correlation between tax cuts and wage, addressing wage stagnation. ordinary people aren't going to benefit from this and the part of what they'll do, remember 2016, issues tracking, health care, guns. gun control, immigration. the economy was there but it

wasn't quite up at the top. they're going to get killed in '18. >> just feels like, though, bill, this is -- i know you're trying to get off this train. working with bill guston, moderate idea, not even moderation, get the two parties together. if we keep doing this partisan passage of bills left and right and the other side successfully winning saying they jammed it through in a partisan way, which the country never likes. is somebody going to wake up, get control of congress and say maybe we shouldn't govern this way anymore? >> you would think so. seems like we have an example of that happening. right? democrats try to put through things in '93-94. what happened in '95-96. welfare e-form. >> pat moynihan, figure it out. >> and newt gingrich a constructive, mostly, bargainer with bill clinton. is it out of the question that

could happen? no strong ideological -- i'm not certain he won't pivot in january. infrastructure, have -- >> work well being the good guy, though? if donald trump wanted to be the good guy, bridge the gap could have done it in january. he had enough room. even after 2016 and after what many felt was a totally outrageous campaign that sunk to new lows, that was insulting for so many americans he still could have come out in january and said i'm going to start with an infrastructure bill. leave all that behind me. work with democrats. republicans would have come running because it's a republican president and he would have started with something bipartisan setting the tone going forward. would have been more popular he had done that, but donald trump doesn't like to be liked. he likes to be -- >> fire bob mueller, that will make it, i believe, hard to have bipartisan cooperation. >> irrespective of donald trump wanting to be darth vader or whomever, right? i think what we see here is a

consistent effort to starve the beast. this tax cut is consistent with the republican kind of principle of starving the federal government and i think it also reflects what they actually care about. right? i think we're running value deficits in this country about who, who we care about what we care about and when we look at this tax bill we see what is -- >> i always believe budget and taxes you find out about a political party. >> chris van hollen asked about impeachment. eddie, he said basically, slam the brakes. like, i want no part of it, but he sort of kind of said, okay, yeah, i wish he would resign. but on sort of that different aspect, do i wish he would. the impeachment issue. how should democrats play this? i get what chris van hollen is talking about. >> i do too. a symbolic gesture. no way this is going to happen. we need to let the mueller investigation play self out. i think there be bigger goms to

be dropped coming down the pipe to mix my metaphors. i understand the symbolic gesture in this regard. a sense in which trump will continue to tighten the noose around his neck. i don't know if this has any political cash value. >> and not able to run away from it. i saw chris van hollen. pyred mueller, doesn't fire mueller, issue as report. clearing trump, probably one case the democrats can actually run just a normal off-year campaign. what if he issues a report saying serious issues, congress should consider them. everyone will be asking, where are you on the possible impeachment of donald trump? not a matter of tactics. incidentally, democrats might well impeach trump in 2019. >> it is all about the voters. talking about a divide in the country between left and right, trump supporters and non-is a importanters. that only gets bridged seeing an electoral landslide for

democrats in 2018 or 2019 and donald trump suddenly disappearing, donald trump getting impeached is only going to make the divide worse. >> all right. thank you all. sneak in a quick break. up ahead, the fcc will throw the kill switch on neutrality. we explain what that means and why it has a big impact on everyone who uses the internet. which is you. that's next. hi, guys. so this is the all-new chevy equinox. it's gorgeous. it offers rear seat reminder, built-in 4g lte wifi... apple car play compatibility... wow... ...and teen driver technology. that's crazy... now to get all of these features, you'd need all six of those crossovers. that's insane! yep, and you still wouldn't get everything that's in this equinox. wowww... six cars in one. use your employee discount for everyone to get forty -five hundred dollars below msrp on this 2018 chevy equinox. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.

ancestrydna can pinpoint where your ancestors are from... and the paths they took to a new home. could their journey inspire yours? order your kit at ancestrydna.com

still to come, why i'm obsessed with some of the worst political candidates ever. first, hampton pearson here with the cnbc market wrap. take it away. >> thanks, chuck. stocks closing lower on wall street as investors wait for the final version of the republican tax overhaul plan. the dow snapped a five-day winning streak losing 77 points. the s&p down 11. the nasdaq closed 19 points lower. disney stock shot up 2.8% after announcing it will pay $52.4 billion in stock to buy foxal movie studios and other assets. the holiday shopping season off to a strong start. rose more than expected in november. that's it from cnbc, first in business worldwide.

we need to be ready for whatever weather may come our way. my name's scott strenfel and i'm a meteorologist at pg&e. we make sure that our crews as well as our customers are prepared to how weather may impact their energy. so every single day we're monitoring the weather, and when storm events arise our forecast get crews out ahead of the storm to minimize any outages.

during storm season we want our customers to be ready and stay safe. learn how you can be prepared at pge.com/beprepared. together, we're building a better california. welcome back. net neutrality is officially dead so long live net neutrality. i kid. the fcc board voted in-line with prshs 3-2 to dismantle the obama

era rules. a lot of debate whether or not this is a good thing, but no one disputes today's vote impacts how everyone in the u.s. uses and pays for the internet. we note comcast parent company of nbc and msnbc is one mpt lead be service providers. they have a strong opinion on this. so what is net neutrality and what does today's vote mean for consumers? tony rahm is a senior editor of politics and policy at recode and he's here to help us break it down and put it in english. that's your charge, tony. net neutrality. you hear it, the phrase is awful. right? people hear it, don't know quite what it means. >> net neutrality is an idea all internet traffic should be treated equally. internet provider whether comcast, at&t, verizon, theoretically shouldn't be able to block your ability to look at websites or slow down your internet connection, in cases charge third parties with music

and videos more to offer that to consumers. for years there have been rules on the u.s. government's books constantly telecom companies sued to kill the rules and now we're in a position, republicans in control of the fcc, donald trump is in the white house and the vote we saw scrapped the obama era protections. >> what i don't get. the internet service provider that i use has different -- okay, i can pay this amount of money for this broadband speed and this amount of money if i want it a little faster. this if i want more bandwidth. that's during net neutrality. explain how net neutrality still allowed for that? >> yeah. you're buying tiers of speed but saying that everything you access is going to come to you at that speed. the issue with a lot of net neutrality have, with at&t allowed to continue with purchase of time warner, the u.s. government is holding up. it said only offering hbo and other content to its consumers

if they paid extra, faster to them, but harder to get for others. what if a comcast, for instance, under the guise of network management said you weren't allowed to access these other news sites that comcast didn't have as part of nbc? these things on the margins net neutrality, without strong government rules telecom companies might do. they say they don't want to reason. a lot of reason they might not. >> consumer activity here is one of those that may end up being the regulatory check. right? consumer activism, especially when it comes to internet access. >> one of the things the telecom companies say, if they screw it up too royally consumers would flock to another broad band provider. net neutrality people point out most don't have access to another broadband provider. >> why is this in the hands of five people at the fcc? i think an act of congress needs to decide this. is the internet a utility or not? something the fcc should decide

or something our representative democracy and the legislative branch should have a say? >> gone through multiple iterations ober this debate over decades. multiple presidents. fcc puts out rule, don't like them, sue, back to the drawing board. members of congress talk about it but never turn those ideas into legislation and ultimately a law. that's exactly where we find ourselves now. even though we had a 3-2 vote by republicans to quash the rules already talk of a lawsuit. basically guaranteed at this point we're going prit back to court and now up to congress to decide when they solve this once and for all way law? we'll see. >> and completely divided. essentially the internet service providers want to get rid of it. the internet service content providers, think apple, amazon, et cetera, what to keep it. what's fascinating to me, though, is how both of those conglomerates if you will, entities, are starting to, apples and amazons will get into

the internet service provider game and vice versa. getting into the content game. seems to be while they're divided, i'm not quite sure which side they really are on. >> telecom companies, really any company doesn't want regulation is what it comes down to on the part of industry. these telecom companies don't believe they need the u.s. government having strong regulations in place that could ultimately tleed more regulation down the line in other areas. sought so -- flip the script. the republicans who put this forward talking whether there's need for net neutrality and not putting them forward, hypothetically, the idea, think more broadly about the kinds of things we regulate and how. >> they scrap the rules but we'll have a lawsuit. and probably the reason i brought that up, big name behind the lawsuit. amazons, apples, not little joe

and john x? >> haven't said they'd sue. lobbying organizations by names most consumers haven't heard of but definitely there will be a case here. and the concern is that -- twofold. first start-ups would be mostly hurt by this. youtube can afford to pay for faster access to one's pipes but the smaller video start-up neither of us have heard of can't pay the tolls to a company like comcast or at&t. the other side of this is that consumer groups say anything that impacts their ability to speak, your ability to say stuff online gives everyone standing here. so they have an argument to bring to the courts. >> i don't understand why congress isn't involved. at some point we're never going to solve this problem if the s.e.c. is basically, fcc, depends on the party and the president. >> congress has the bandwidth to do it and more offen an understanding on capitol hill than ever before but a lot of

lobbying against it. folks talk how they want legislation. you never know what it will look like. tax reform, talked about earlier. these hit the hill and everything goes running. a lot of money behind not having a bill, not having a legislative solution for a long time. >> seems to me just this ping-pong with the fcc seems like it's not good for anybody on either side of the argument. anyway, thanks for doing your best in english. i would say you put it into english. pretty good. thanks. >> i tried. roy moore was a bad candidate. a really bad candidate. but he's far from the first really bad candidate. that's what i'm obsessed with, next. we've started a campaign to let the american people raise their voice to say that this president is unfit for office and needs to go. i love it! yes! yes! [ chuckles ] there it is -- over there! mcminnville, tennessee... poughkeepsie, new york... milton, indiana... chattahoochee, florida... wow... we're looking at the whole country. not just the coasts. even in utah, we're starting to realize

trump has been doing things that are against our laws. i definitely worry about war. north korea. i don't want that guy's hand near the bomb. sick to my stomach. he's not the kind of person that should be running our country. the things that he does has consequences. is this going to be here for my grandchildren? he's not being held accountable. if we have the vote, like we have for election day, they will impeach him. times square is the crossroads of the world. we need everyone to go and put their name down at needtoimpeach.com. we need to speak up together and demand an end to this presidency. i am totally blind. and non-24 can make me show up too early... or too late. or make me feel like i'm not really "there." talk to your doctor, and call 844-234-2424. when food is good and clean and real, it's ok to crave.

and with panera catering, there's more to go around. panera. food as it should be. welcome back. tonight i'm still obsessed with how much alabama looks like massachusetts. heading into 2018, a failed republican senate candidate in alabama did everything he could to lose an unlosable race and succeeded. 2010, a failed senate candidate in massachusetts did everything she could to lose supposedly an unlosable race and yes, succeeded losing it. responding to criticism too passive saying as opposed to standing outside fenway park in the cold shaking hands, ouch, yes, exactly how she managed to commit an almost religious sin in massachusetts with this exchange.

>> yeah, but now -- >> i'm not a yankee fan. >> curt schilling a yankee fan? >> no. i'm wrong. >> yeah a rough one. curt schilling was a former red sox hero and pitcher. trying to explain away coakley's loss as a misstep. and then democrats lost seats in the house and senate. 2018, republicans, saw it yesterday. trying to explain away roy moore's loss to doug jones. it's a black swan. no, it won't repeat itself. stay tuned. d. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college.

it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪

from our family to yours... may all your wishes come true this holiday season. welcome back. time for the lid. that was paul ryan laughing off a question about reports that he's retiring in the 2018

mid-term election. this is your side of the aisle so i'll let you first, look, when i first saw this "huffington post" rumor. well, actually, the paul ryan that said he would take the speakership. him only serving through 2018 wouldn't surprise me. if he lost the majority, he wouldn't stay. most don't. so in some ways, this isn't surprising. yet why the rumor mongering got out of hand, i don't know. >> i think he's talking to people and he's not happy about defending donald trump for another year. he's done it more than i would have wished this past year but i think it's been painful for him. he'll get tax reform in. he believes in that bill. i don't think he can do the reform in 2018. he's not probably in favor of the infrastructure thing. i keep coming back to this. if trump fires bob mueller. >> he doesn't want to be the

speaker to deal with that. >> he doesn't want to defend it. what did we learn about his members? they are going to be with trump. so i think paul ryan may as a matter of principle as well as personal desire, not just to resign at the end of 2018 but january or february. >> so this is more than rumor? >> yeah. i think it's more than rumor. >> interesting. >> listen, i think that makes sense. paul ryan, he was reluctant to come to trump during campaign. he cut ties with him. firing the special counsel, and then having to figure out a way to deal with your caucus that wants to defend that i think would be very difficult. especially given everything that paul ryan and other leadership republicans have said about maintaining the integrity of that investigation. it would be a very abrupt turn-around and i think it would have some consequences. >> i have to double-check the wisconsin filing deadline.

now i think we have to pay attention to that. and the first congressional district. >> i think he's been tanth by trump. to my mind, paul ryan and mitch mcconnell are come police with it this experience we've had this last year, 2016, with donald trump. the crisis of our democracy isn't just trump. it has been the willingness on the part of a variety of actors to be complicit in discarding democratic norms. and i want to say in certain moments, when ryan has been silent, in certain moments when he's allowed himself to accept the trump, as i call him, the p.t. barnum. what mitch mcconnell has done with regard to gorsuch and others in the senate, there's a reason we're in this moment. it is not just because of trump. >> there was another thing. he was asked about the issue of members sleeping in their offices. now in the wake of this sexual harassment. and paul ryan famously has been doing this since he got to

congress is that this is no way to imply him but he was asked the question, look, it's done because it's convenience for some of us that can't afford -- some of them can't afford a second apartment. wash d.c. is very expensive. but as our colleague said, there is a lot of young women staffers who have been uncomfortable, who put in uncomfortable situations. this may be a practice that might symbolically have to go. >> i hadn't really thought about that. that could be the case. i think there will be a bunch of congressmen and senators. >> let's be real. there's an anvil that everybody has been talking about that is hanging over congress. dozens of members, supposedly. and and all of our sources have been talking about this nonstop and wahl ryan, who is a squeaky clean person. does he want to be the person who has to go to another ten republican members and say you have to resign? or to be the person who decides,

does he let him help out or serve the rest of the year? that's not why he came to congress. he came to congress to write bills and so forth. >> i know this is slightly off topic. the difference really underscores the problem we're having with these allegations. john conyers needs to resign immediately. why does he get another year of taxpayer compensation? and why would john conyers not be able to? it bothers me. i'm not sure that decision stays. >> great, thank you. we're halfway there. we're more than halfway there. we end tonight celebrating some of the big names in rock. that's next.

at planters we know how to throw a remarkable holiday party. just serve classy snacks and be a gracious host, no matter who shows up.

do you like nuts? i am totally blind. and non-24 can throw my days and nights out of sync, keeping me from the things i love to do. talk to your doctor, and call 844-214-2424.

hello again. in case you missed it. because we're all mixed up, we missed it. yesterday the rock and roll nominees for the rock of fail. the times, they are achampging. do you know what's not on that list? four women. who says you can't go home? like brothers in arms, some of these guys are going home. the cars broke up in the late '80s but they'll be inducted

together. don't let me be misunderstood from the bottom of my heart even with politics as toxic as it is these days, it's my life. but sometimes, a little bit of happy news from the music world. well, it's just what i needed. i'll going to go now. we'll be back tomorrow. "the beat" starts right now. >> good evening. the democratic victory in alabama changed a lot and tonight there are signs it might even change everything for donald trump's last hope for a legislative win before congress adjourns for the year which is our top story. >> we are getting new spines donald trump's tax reform bill which he just touted as days away from passing as recent as yesterday now hanging by a thread. let me explain why. within the last two