i'm nicolle wallace. "mtp daily" starts right now. hi, chuck. >> happy news, nicolle. >> happy tuesday from washington. >> yeah, nice to be from washington. >> it's very nice. >> so, we'll take it over. thank you. if it's tuesday, the fbi probe into kavanaugh may be almost done. good evening, i'm chuck todd here in washington. welcome to "mtp daily." the fbi has three more days to complete its supplemental investigation of brett kavanaugh, but it may not need three more days. according to "the wall street journal," agents could wrap it up tonight or tomorrow. we learned late today is fbi is not currently planning to interview dr. christine blasey ford. white house believing that her testimony itself is enough of an interview. but even as the fbi questions other witnesses and even as president trump said again today that a senate vote is dependent

on what comes back from the fbi, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, for the second straight day, took to the senate floor to insist, he's holding a vote on kavanaugh this week, despite the key republican swing votes on kavanaugh say ing they want to wait. >> the investigation is ongoing, they interviewed the first four that were named and have branched off from there, is my understanding, and are interviewing additional individuals. as it should be. i hope they follow leads that come from those first interviews. >> the fbi is doing its investigation. we need them to do their investigation. and what i'm going to do is, i'm going to wait to see what comes back. >> by the way, had a bug up there that said manchester, new hampshire, jeff flake was in minnesota today, he was in d.c. today where he made those remarks. but what will really be the deciding factor if senators flake, murkowski and collins, we

don't know. will the fbi's findings about kavanaugh be secondary now? there's this "new york times" report that kavanaugh was questioned by police after a bar fight in 1985. and a statement from kavanaugh's college classmate claiming to have seen the supreme court nominee belligerent and aggressive when he'd had too much to drink. but maybe kavanaugh's drinking isn't really the deciding issue, either. maybe it's his denials about his drinking. >> should look into whether he lied or not, lied about his antics in college, should the fbi look into that? >> i think -- i think the fbi is doing what we've tasked the fbi to do. that's all -- that's all i can ask for right now. >> any nominee that lies to the committee, that is disqualifying. >> and if it isn't what he said to the senate judiciary committee last thursday, maybe it's how he said it. >> i was very troubled by the tone of the -- of the remarks.

the interaction with the members was sharp and partisan and that concerns me. and i tell myself, you give a little leeway because of what he's been through, but on the other hand, we can't have this on the court. we simply can't. >> did flake just signal he's voting no? anyway, so, this begs the question, what will decide bret kavanaugh's fate? sexual assault allegations, his drinking history, his honesty about his drinking his temperate? a combination of all these factors? or perhaps none of them? joining me now is tonight's panel. eugene scott. matthew gotineti. i begin this discussion with, what are we debating? because i don't think we know. don't think we know. and i think it depends on what side of the aisle you're falling

on now. there are quite a few people that are arguing that everything is connected. his honesty, his past behavior in college involving alcohol and, of course, sexual misconduct. >> matthew? what do you think we're debating? >> i think what really matters is what flake, collins and murkowski think we're debate, and then in a second group, manchin and heitkamp. those are the five senators that i'm focused, like a laser, on, and the truth is, we don't know, chuck, what's going through their head. like we said, we ran the clip of flake today, well, we can't have that type of partisanship on the court, does that mean that flake is inclined to vote now? >> danielle? gli think it's everything. it is a combination of everything. there is something to displease all the members in this nominee. and the question they have to ask themselves is, am i willing to stake my name that if i vote yes for him, that nothing else is going to happen, that no shoe is going to drop, let's say he gets confirmed and there's evidence of some inappropriate

behavior, like, that is the calculus that someone like jeff flake and susan collins, who allegedly care about their reputation, have to think about. >> well, the question about his conduct or his truthfulness about his drinking, it seems it's because, did he overdeny? did he leave himself no wiggle room? >> it seems like he didn't, right? it goes to the thing where, if you lie about the little things, what else are you willing to lie about? if he had just said, yes, you know, it was the '80s, i drank occasionally, sometimes to excess, but you know, this is who i am now, i never did these things, i think people would be willing to give him more of the doubt, but it's the whole, i was a choir boy, i never did anything wrong. >> is the arrest, this bar fight at yale more relevant because of how he denied it? >> no. >> to some people? >> no, it's not relevant. what's relevant to the republicans is dr. ford and deborah ramirez.collins, the swetnick allegations. and so, those are the reasons

that they requested the fbi investigation to begin with. it will be on their receipt of the fbi information regarding those three allegations that their vote depends. >> eugene, mitch mcconnell said only senators were going to see this new fbi investigation. >> that's what he said, but we know how washington works and this will be leaked out. and i think if you don't make it public to people -- >> it has to be public, in some form. >> well, a form of it should be, because voters care, and people want to know, and this is an issue that's gone beyond the concern of senators, but concern of all of the people who watched it. >> i want to play pat toomey today, because he got to this temperate issue, and he's making a case that says, hey, we have a record of judicial temperament. take a listen. >> if you want to know what brett kavanaugh's temperate in the courtroom is, we have 12 years of his service on the d.c. circuit court of appeals. there's plenty, and no one has ever said that he has an unsuitable temperate in all the

years he's been on the court. >> danielle, would you concede that while, yes, he worked for ken starr, yes he dropped that clinton little weird bomb during his testimony, which i think is understandable why some people took that the wrong way, is there evidence when he's been in a courtroom he's been a partisan like this. >> i mean, no, but you can't discount what you saw with your own eyes. and you can't discount his history. and the reflex to immediately go to left wing conspiracies and the clintons who are after me, i mean, how -- how can you say that he will be an impartial person on the court when he just espoused these views? >> matthew, the clinton comment had to be troubling to some people. >> right. there is a debate raging on the right whether he was attacking the clintons directly or he was saying that it was upset on the part of the democrats over clinton's loss that led to this -- look. kavanaugh was in an impossible

situation, chuck. it's been ten days with not having any public platform to present his side of the story. the scandals and charges became more extravagant with every passing day. and then when he expresses his outrauj a outrage and outrage felt by the entire republican party, then he's attacked for becoming angry. so, there's no way for him to win that argument, but i think what toomey was saying is reflective of a lot of republicans, which is that as a judge, you can look at his history up to now and he has never been accused of losing his cool before. >> you know, eugene, john harris, a former "washington poster" and current politico guy wrote a fantastic article today. he throws back to 1998 and the clint clintons. clinton's lies in that year of

scandal started in january 1998 with finger-wagging claim that he did not have sexual relations with that woman. but clinton's supporters, like kavanaugh's now, by this point were less concerned with the literal truth about his sexual behavior or his statements about it than they were in the larger power struggle. >> indeed, and i think some people really believe that what is being excused is really important, and really significant and needs to be highlighted, in terms of what he may have said in the past, his anger problems, his interactions with people, his reputation and people want to look at what all of this could mean on who he will be on the court, and just as a person in general, and i think that's in part why you may have seen even some people in the harvard law community say, we don't feel comfortable even with him in this environment. >> the argument from the left on

this, the john harris argument on this is simply, hey, this whitewater, they couldn't find anything on whitewater, they got him on lying with this. well, we playing kavanaugh, this is what the right now is complaining, well, they couldn't get kavanaugh on the substance, so, they go after it on this. is there something there? >> well, this is not a criminal investigation. i believe many of the democrats repeatedly said, from the podium last week, it is a committee hearing, it's a background check, right? so the -- the democrats are going to vote for him regardless -- vote against him, excuse me, regardless. they announced their opposition when his name was announced. so, these arguments, i think, aren't compelling when it comes to the actual swing votes in the senate, which are the three republicans and those two red state democrats. they are looking at what the fbi reports back on these sexual misconduct allegations. >> you raise a good point. yes, democrats are generally

going to vote against him, but there was also neil gorsuch, another georgetown prep alum, and they voted against him, as well, but none of this other stuff was happening. this is different. and we're talking about allegations of sexual assault. not just sexual impropriety. and so, i think, it rises to a different level than what, you know, we've been talking about before, and, you know, look, yes, it's not -- it's not a criminal trial, as we've all been saying that, so, the level is different, and i just want to say one thing about bill clinton and presidents and many ebbs of congress who go through this -- there's a process where voters can vote these people out, you know, it oos two years, it's four years. we're talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. >> i agree with you, but if it's about the sexual assault allegations, we should go the extra mile like jeff flake said. that's not what the quote you read, chuck, is about. it's about whether he was being exactly truthful about his college drinking. >> well, let me introduce a

reason why perhaps, just my theory why bret kavanaugh is in this situation. he's done six background checks, eugene. i'm guessing he doesn't want to ever say anything he hasn't said before on an fbi background check and maybe the drinking has never within, or maybe it was downplayed in previous -- i've participated in fbi background checks. you are asked about drinking history. >> there are people who went to college with him, who you would think would be interviewed, who have never been contacted. so, there is some concern about objectivity, regarding his career, and what role this could play, and it is reinforcing their fears and concerns about whether or not he would rule in ways that favor trump, if he made it to the bench. >> do you think that it's the previous fbi investigation that have made him a little bit hesitant to give himself more wiggle room about his drinking?

>> i'm just not sure. i mean, i doubt that those fbi investigations went back to college. i doubt they went back to his high school yearbook. >> they usually go back to 18. they do go back to that. >> has it ever presented a problem, is the way -- >> yeah, it is asked. you have ever seen them intoxicated? >> before last week, chuck, no one has ever said it presented a problem about bret kavanaugh. that's the truth. >> or maybe it did and, to your point, the administration was like, eh, we can overlook that, and we find it acceptable. >> i wouldn't call it breaking news, per se, but a breaking update from dr. ford's lawyer, as we've learned, the fbi is not going to interview her. well, her lawyers put out this statement, quote, it is inconceivable that the fbi can conduct a thorough investigation of dr. ford's allegations without interviewing her, judge kauf n kavanaugh or the witnesses we have identified to tyou.

is this moving the goal posts? >> i think any reasonable person would say, if you are going to reopen the investigation and they are giving you corroborating witnesses, that the fbi would interview all of those people. they have a week. so, i don't think it's moving the goal post. i think this is what -- i'm pretty sure this is what flake would have expected to happen. >> i understand the public may think that, but does it make sense that the fbi interview -- they already have her, they know the people she's offering up as potential supporting witnesses. >> you would think they would. i think the argument has been that they heard her last week, but obviously there's more that she could have said, there was room for followup questions. i think most people who listened have more questions. you would think the fbi would certainly have more questions. >> matthew, i'm going to go back to your original answer to me, which is, i assume the only person's opinion that matters here is lisa murkowski and susan collins and jeff flake. >> that seems like it is directed to flake. what's curious -- >> or directed to murkowski who herself has been very specific, i want to see a thorough

investigation. >> right. what's curious about the lawyer's statement, it says that the fbi might not have interviewed the other witnesses that she named, which i believe is exactly what they did as part of the -- >> they are interviewing -- either have done it or still doing it. >> so -- it seems like dr. ford may be the last interview to be conducted. >> well, no, they said they weren't going to interview her. the white house did rule that out completely. >> then we're in another situation where we can live in this, you know, stay sis and limbo that we've been in for even longer. >> daniela, what would -- what would it take, do you think, for a majority of senate democrats to feel as if, look, i'm not satisfied i can support kavanaugh, but i'm satisfied they did the investigation. >> they did to interview her. they need to interview her. >> and without interviewing her, democrats have the high ground on this? >> i think so. >> all right. i'm going to pause it here. you guys are sticking around. that's part of your punishment for the hour.

up next, what's ahead in the kavanaugh floor vote fight. we'll talk to a top democrat on the yjudiciary committee next. xt ready to juvéderm it? correct age-related volume loss in cheeks with juvéderm voluma xc, add fullness to lips with juvéderm ultra xc and smooth moderate to severe lines around the nose and mouth with juvéderm xc. tell your doctor if you have a history of scarring or are taking medicines that decrease the body's immune response or that can prolong bleeding. common side effects include injection-site redness, swelling, pain, tenderness, firmness, lumps, bumps, bruising, discoloration or itching. as with all fillers, there is a rare risk of unintentional injection into a blood vessel, which can cause vision abnormalities, blindness, stroke, temporary scabs or scarring. ( ♪ )

juvéderm it. talk to your doctor about the juvéderm collection of fillers.

hundred roads named "park" in the u.s. it's america's most popular street name. but allstate agents know that's where the similarity stops. if you're on park street in reno, nevada, the high winds of the washoe zephyr could damage your siding. and that's very different than living on park ave in sheboygan, wisconsin, where ice dams could cause water damage. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands?

welcome back. "the wall street journal" is reporting that the fbi's kavanaugh probe could wrap up at any minute now. joined now by dick durbin, the second-highest ranking senate democrat and member of the judiciary committee. thank you for coming on. >> glad to be with you. >> we've heard from dr. ford's lawyer, they're not happy that the fbi apparently, right now, has ruled out the need to

interview dr. ford, they're interviewing all the names that they have provided the fbi, but not dr. ford. do you think it's necessary to interview dr. ford, to have an idea of what happened, or do you believe, as the white house says, her testimony in front of you, in a public forum, was good enough? >> i certainly think that she should be included in an fbi interview. she has volunteered to do this. she testified under oath and she said was prepared for an fbi interview. certainly, they should ask about any loose ends, any questions based on what she's told us. that's just due diligence. but i think at the heart of it is what the white house has said. as long as they can keep dr. ford off the witness list for the fbi, they can credibly say, there's no point in going back to judge kavanaugh. his further sbe view, at this point, i think, is essential. >> what are we debating about judge kavanaugh? are we debating about his fitness to serve, are we

debating his it yoj. you were already opposed to him before the character questions rose, so, what are we debating? >> it is a question now of credibility, temperament, demeanor and whether or not this man should be giving a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. there are many people who could serve in that capacity. he's not the only one. if serious questions are raised about his credibility, whether he's told the truth to the american people, he shouldn't be serving on this court. >> what could -- what could make you feel more comfortable seeing him confirmed, even if you're a no vote? >> i'd like to know that the fbi would report back to us no strings attached, we made the decision, we had the allegations from dr. ford, from ramirez, from swetnick, we followed them as we would any type of an investigation, our hands weren't tied and we came up with the following information, read it for yourself, members of the senate, and you can reach your conclusion. with that kind of a background, i would think it had more credibility.

but if this is some hurry up and get it done, limit the number of witnesses, we don't have time to spend another day on it, we have to vote before friday or saturday, then a lot of us are going to be disappointed. >> what is the -- what is your sense of how many senate democrats are still actually undecided on judge kavanaugh? >> i would say there are probably two that have not announced what they're going to do. maybe it's only one at this point, but it really -- it comes down to this. if the three republicans who are at the center of attention, as they should be at this point, undecided, should decide to move in the direction of voting against judge kavanaugh, i think democrats will be united, as well, against him. >> should this fbi report be made public? it seems like there's some disagreement among even senate democrats on the judiciary committee about whether the report should be public or whether having you guys get a look at it is enough. >> well, historically, it's been

kept confidential. i understand that. i've read quite a few of them over the years involving judicial nominees in particular. the suggestion has been made by senator schumer that perhaps it can be redacted so that the american people get a better idea of what was found during the course of this investigation. i don't know if that's possible or even legal. certainly prefer as much transparency as possible. >> what role should public opinion play in deciding judge kavanaugh's fate? >> well, i -- it's a factor, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor. the deciding factor ought to be the facts and the truth. we ought to get to the point where we believe we honestly can make a choice between the sworn testimony of dr. ford and the sworn testimony of judge kavanaugh. clearly, at this point, they are in direct contradiction. >> what do you say to -- the reason i'm asking this is that it does depend on where you live on how you feel about the judge kavanaugh situation. you look at the constituents of

senators heitkamp and manchin and you've got large majorities that are in favor of judge kavanaugh. would you understand if those senators said, you know what, i'm here to represent my constituents, at the end of the day. >> listen, i would totally understand that, chuck. but i want to tell you something. having spoken to my colleagues, many of them have said, they are going to vote their conscience on this. this is an historic choice. if it's not popular at home and they have to pay a price for it, they're prepared to do it. i think that's part of the oath of office we take. to stand up and do what we think is right, even if it's politically unpopular. >> it's my understanding senator schumer brought up the idea that if democrats take the senate, reinstating the filibuster. you would potentially be supp t supportive of bringing it back. is there enough support to bring it back? i've gotten the sense that there might not be. >> well, there are mixed feelings, because of what we went through with merrick

garland. when a vacancy was kept open for ten months plus so they could literally engineer neil gorsuch into that vacancy, giving them an advantage on the supreme court. so, i'd like to see us get back to 60, it may be a decision in procedure that has to be e the layed a few years so no side thinking they're gaining it to the disadvantage of the other side, but i think we ought to get back to 60 so we're going to get more bipartisan candidates. >> do you understand why your colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe everything -- that all the different ways that democrats have complained about judge kavanaugh have been essentially an attempt to delay, delay, in order to get to the election, that they don't think that you're operating on a fair playing field, that you're not really caring about character, you just want to delay? do you understand why they think that? >> no, and i'll tell you why. because they don't really

believe it. they know, as well as you and i know, we don't have the votes. we're in the minority. the only thing that brought this hearing together last thursday was the demand of jeff flake, a republican, supported by the democrats, of course. but his demand led to that hearing. the only thing that led to the fbi investigation was the demand of jeff flake, together with senators murkowski and collins, for an fbi investigation. we don't have the votes to make it happen. we have not delayed this. it has been a common effort by some republicans and democrats to get to the bottom of a critically important issue about this nomination. >> the judge kavanaugh news is sort of like this eclipse that blocks out the sun, and no other news can break through, but there was an inspector general report at the department of homeland security that talked about the trump administration just wasn't ready for their decision to separate children from parents, how to execute this plan, struggling to get --

to reunite. they just didn't have the manpower. i know where you are politically on this issue. what can the united states congress do to at least fix this situation? >> first, we take care of the 136 children separated from their parents under president trump's zero tolerance policy and reunite them with their parents. immediately. 136 of them. some of them have been separated from their parents for seven or eight months. i went into an immigration court in chicago and saw a 4-year-old boy who was before the court that day. i now know the full story. his mother calls him periodically. the poor kid will not talk to her, he no longer is eating, he's refusing to eat. and he's back in diapers at age 4. this is a devastating experience for this little boy and it's our government policy that led to it. take care of the kids first. >> all right, senator durbin, i'd love to go more into there, i got, unfortunately, a lot. trying to get on my plate, but it's, again, judge kavanaugh's

plotting out the sun these days, but that's the story a lot of us should pay attention to. senator durbin, thank you for your time. >> thanks, chuck. up ahead, one of the most truly shocking political ads that i've ever seen. the consequences underwater can escalate quickly. the next thing i know, she swam off with the camera. it's like, hey, thats mine! i want to keep doing what i love. that's the retirement plan. with my annuity i know there's a guarantee. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retireyourrisk.org gimme two minutes. and i'll tell you some important things to know about medicare. first, it doesn't pay for everything. say this pizza... [mmm pizza...] is your part b medical expenses. this much - about 80 percent...

medicare will pay for. what's left... this slice here... well... that's on you. and that's where an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company comes in. this type of plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. and these are the only plans to carry the aarp endorsement. that's because they meet their high standards of quality and service. wanna learn more? it's easy. call unitedhealthcare insurance company now and ask... for this free decision guide. inside you'll find the range of aarp medicare supplement plans and their rates. apply any time, too. oh. speaking of time... about a little over half way and there's more to tell. like, how... with this type of plan, you'll have the freedom to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. great for staying with the one you know... or finding... somebody new, like a specialist. there are no networks and no referrals needed.

none. and when you travel, your plan will go with you- anywhere in the country. so, if you're in another state visiting the grandkids, stay awhile... enjoy... and know that you'll still be able to see any doctor who accepts medicare patients. so call unitedhealthcare today. they are committed to being there for you. tick, tick, tick, time for a wrap up. a medicare supplement plan helps pay some of what medicare doesn't. you know, the pizza slice. it allows you to choose any doctor, who accepts medicare patients... and these are the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. whew! call unitedhealthcare today and ask for this free decision guide.

well cop back. tonight, i'm obsessed with what may be the single most shocking and outrageous political ad i've ever seen.

and that's saying a lot. it comes from this man, it's republican congressman duncan hunter of california. here's a piece of the ad. >> working to infiltrate congress. he's used three different names to hide his family's ties to terrorism. his grandfather masterminded the munich olympic disaster. his father said they deserve to die. >> all right, so, let's leave aside for the moment that duncan hunter is an diindicted member congress. maybe you understand why he's got to go ultra negative. and his grandfather died 16 years before he was actually born. he's a christian, by the way. and he was raised in san diego largely by his mother and he received a security clearance to work in the obama white house and the labor department. he's been through a background check. and let's leave aside that hunter, who along with his wife has been indicted for allegedly using campaign funds for personal expenses, is implying that his opponent is a terrorist who is trying and he used the

words, infiltrate congress. it's like a bad episode of "homeland." let's just listen to the outrage this over the top attack ad has generated among elected officials. that's right. crickets. crickets. because republicans don't want to get drawn into this mess. crickets because democrats don't think he can win, so why bother. crickets, even though this political hit job is in a cla classless by itself. we're going down this road? and do you know what all those crickets tell the duncan hunters of the world and the operatives that produce ads like this? it tells them, keep doing what you're doing, because ads like this work. don't worry, the political class won't care. and what does that tell us about the state of our politics today? e i don't want any trade minimums. yeah, i totally agree, they don't have any of those. i want to know what i'm paying upfront.

yes, absolutely. do you just say yes to everything? hm. well i say no to kale. mm. yeah, they say if you blanch it it's better, but that seems like a lot of work. no hidden fees. no platform fees. no trade minimums. and yes, it's all at one low price. td ameritrade. ♪ 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. healthier brain. better life. there lots of people who are confused about which medicare plan is right for them. hey, that's me. i barely know where to start. well, start here with me, karen. i'm a licensed humana sales agent. well, it's nice to meet you, karen. i'm john smith. hi, john. at humana, we know you're unique. so you have different needs from other john smiths. yah, i've always thought so. and together, we can find a plan that's right for you. great! i go to the doctor a couple of times a year. and i have some prescriptions. but i'm

never fully sure of what's covered and what's not. with humana's all-in-one medicare advantage plans, you get coverage for hospital stays, doctor visits, and part d prescription drug benefits. all for an affordable, and sometimes, no monthly plan premium. do you have any more information? sure. i'll get a decision guide in the mail to you today. they're free. finally. someone who understands the real me. your health and happiness is important to us. call or go online now to get your free decision guide. call a licensed humana sales agent today.

welcome back. we know that kavanaugh's nomination fight whether impact the midterms.

but we just don't know how. president trump said today he thinks the fight helps republicans. >> everywhere i go, i'm going to pennsylvania, it's the same thing. they are so in favor of judge kavanaugh, you've never seen anything like it. i actually think it's like a rallying cry for the republicans. they are so in favor of judge kavanaugh. >> and some republican senate candidates are definitely hoping kavanaugh helps then. in indiana, the republican challenger is attacking the incumbent senator for his anti-kavanaugh position, calling him more concerned with standing with his liberal democrat leaders than standing for hoosiers. in missouri, senator mccaskill's challenger has attacked her position ten times on twitter since friday. take a listen. >> myself and a lot of the people across this nation, are

very disturbed with the way this entire process was handled. there is a man who has a commendable record, 300 decisions that he has written, and he should be serving on the bench and absolutely i would vote for him. >> let me bring in a couple of political strategists from each side of the aisle. guys and gals, thank you for being on. michael steel, let me start with you. there's a lot of anecdotal being shared with people like me. i'm sure you're getting it. how much do you think kavanaugh is helping the republican base right now and how would you describe kavanaugh in general? is it a net positive or a net negative? >> it's a net positive. i think that leaving aside the facts of the allegations, in terms of political perception, there's a lot of people in america who think he's getting a raw deal. a lot of people who think he's being criticized and attacked for standing up for protecting unborn human life and the second

amendment. if you look at the numbers in states like indiana, west virginia, missouri, north dakota, these are all places where a democratic incumbent senator will be hurt by a no vote on kavanaugh. >> anna, your polling in a lot of places, is it universal or depending on where you poll? >> well, the national numbers are clear. his favorability has gone down. so, the notion that this whole thing this week was a net positive for republican seems nuts to me. including 65% of people who leave ford, which is well beyond the share of the vote that are voting for democrats. i think this is a particular problem for republicans, large populations of white collar and professional women who are already pretty haangry, volunteering, giving money. this is another piece of, you know, another insult, another offense for people that just keeps them engaged with the election. >> but address the specific states, though, that michael

addressed. missouri, indiana, i played a clip from the montana debate, we have north dakota. west virginia. it plays a little different there. >> so, to say that kavanaugh helps in those states, you have to assume that people that support trump are already engaged. we've seen in the last month an increase in republican engagement, probably a return to the norm. i'm just not sure that kavanaugh adds more to it. i feel like the base is pretty consolidated on the republican side. they are increasing intensity pre-kavanaugh. i'm just not sure how much more. it's really a partisan fight. >> michael, what do you think of that analysis? >> no, i think that it's wrong. i think that democrats have been energized because of their opposition, their white hot hatred of president trump and this is an issue that is energizing republicans, bringing more republicans to the polls. we're not seeing that erosion you would expect in suburban areas, and in the house, this offers some republicans in moderate districts the opportunity to get a little distance from the president. if you look at leonard lance in

new jersey, he praised senator flake for calling for the investigation and delay. that probably plays pretty well in his more moderate affluent college educated district. >> but michael, let me ask you this. say you get kavanaugh confirmed friday or saturday. we're still waiting for the election where voters show up to say thank you. >> look, there's no question that the supreme court is a big issue, going to be a big issue. it was in '16, it will be in the midterms, but we are still several weeks away, which is an eternity in the news cycle. whatever happens on kavanaugh, there will be a new series of events, a new series of outrages, a new series of fights between now and november 6th. >> i rest may case. >> so, you just believe that while yes, maybe they're getting some enthusiasm bump, maybe it's mixed in with labor day and you just think it will pass. >> postlabor day, two things have happened. one, there's been a pretty big shift away from trump, especially in the tossup

districts. i'm involved in a lot of races and i'm seeing, even like ten-point shifts in the generic congressional, ten-point shifts or more on trump's favorability and job approval. and at the same time, there's been more republican energy. this is in motion, post-labor day. people are focuses. to me, kavanaugh, if it had been derailed, it would have led to, on the right, a pretty severe reaction. >> but that's -- >> the thing is, he's probably going to be confirmed. >> if he is derailed, you think that could have that sort of perverse effect, meaning it actually rallies the right. >> absolutely. but it will also rally the left even more, because they won something in the context of complete republican control. and so, i just think it's going to be in that sense a net neutral. >> and michael, i have heard two different arguments from republicans on this, if kavanaugh goes down, there's the conventional one that anna's arguing that sort of, yes, this is going to rally the right, but then there's another that, i think, kimberly straszle makes

the argument, no, no, we're going to blame you, mitch mcconnell, and you, scaredy cat republicans. >> no. i think what happens if kavanaugh doesn't get the confirmation, one, you're going to have a hugely outraged republican base. they're going to be excited to turn out on election day and there is still time to nominate another supreme court nominee between now and election day. you're going to be able to avenge kavanaugh and support this new, probably just as conservative nominee. >> by the way, lindsey graham calls for renominating kavanaugh. >> yeah, okay. >> no, i don't think that's going to work. >> every time the republicans lose, which they have lost on everything but the tax bill, they've not been able to do, there's lots of stuff happening, but in terms of legislative victories, it actually hurts them. losing the health care -- introducing that legislation and losing it hurt them. so, the notion that losing kavanaugh isn't going to hurt republicans in the sense of not your rabid, very ideological

trump supporters, but the average republican that sees dysfunction in complete republican control and wonder why they tried in the first place if they knew he had these problems. >> tell me what a middle ground is on this issue, or can you not have a middle ground on this? anna, i'll start with you. >> in what respect? >> heidi heitkamp. how do you help her find a middle ground here where she nose the majority of her constituents think kavanaugh should be onboard. >> well, first of all, i'm not clear that supreme court -- that supreme court matters as much as pundits like to say it does. your average voter is consumed with health care costs and hating the discourse, hating the fighting, they tune it out, they think everyone is to blame. so, i wouldn't overstate how much this vote matters for these red state republicans. the middle ground is saying, like, i'm okay -- i will vote for a conservative, you know, for the court, as long as they are, you know, not a sexual harasser, not, you know, a conspiracy theorist. the middle ground is to say, i'm going to vote for a perfectly

qualified conservative. >> that was the joe donnelly statement was. >> i didn't advice him. >> he said i voted for gorsuch, i would do it the other way. >> michael? >> i think people to vote on these issues in red states. and i think if the fbi completes the investigation, finds no corroborating evidence, finds no new facts, i think it's going to be very hard for senators like heitkamp and monchin to go back to their constituents and explain why they voted no on a man cleared by the fbi. >> what if you are dealing with swing voters that, they're uncomfortable the other way? >> i think heller is in the senate, he's going to have to take a vote. he's probably going to vote yes, and i think that mcsally and, say, marsha blackburn, who is another potentially vulnerable republican, could probably come up with a statement that, as long as the fbi clears this

nomine, they would be supportive. >> michael steel, anna gre greenburg, thank you for disagreeing without being disagreeable. >> it's possible. >> it was a well thought out and well done back and forth. much appreciated. up ahead, the gop's tough decisions over which races to stop supporting. to stop supporting. every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.

...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. welcome back. today in meet the midterms,

maybe we should say, today in house races that may not be in play anymore, call it triage time for house republicans in recent days. the house gop's campaign arm and the main super pac supporting its candidates has been canceling ad buys or not quite getting rid of all of them, but narrowing them down for incumbents like keith rothfus, mike coffman, kevin yoder and mike bishop. rothfus and coffman's races are leaning democrat. while yoder and bishop are still tossdowns. house republicans are still funneling resources to places that aren't quite as competitive anymore, or supposedly not competitive, like in nebraska's second district, where the gop hit the democrat in an ad. cook report rates that race as leaning republican. while some districts may be too far gone, they are trying to keep a blue wave from reaching the redder parts of the country. hence nebraska two still being a place they're advertising. we'll be back with more "mtp

daily" right after the break. ftk in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today. (door bell rings) it's ohey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough. and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections,

including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

welcome back. time for "the lid." panel is back. eugene scott, daniela gibbs, matthew, i hate doing this since it's not your organization that broke this, it's a "new york times" story, a big piece that chronicles the trump family's ability to sort of avoid paying taxes over decades. to some who follow donald trump's career, they'll be shocked there's gambling going on in this establishment, meaning donald trump ducking taxes is something he bragged about at times during the campaign. but we now have the "new york daily news" saying the new york state investigators plan to investigate this. does this matter? we can have an argument about should it matter. but does it matter? >> it certainly doesn't matter to trump supporters. we've had stories like this come out throughout the campaign. he flipped it on his head and

said it was the laws that he was taking advantage of, and cthey cheered him on. the real question is that in avoiding paying taxes, many of the dollars that would have supported many of the voters who backed him weren't available. because he wasn't paying them. >> ironically, daniela, this issue, the thing that may drive the president the craziest is that this actually burst the bubble that he was self-made. >> right, exactly. he got a very small, modest loan of $1 million, oh, actually, $413 million, that he got from his dad. i mean, look. for those of us who grew up in new jersey in the tristate area, none of this is surprising like you said. there are new facts that back up the things we were all screaming about during the election, but sadly it won't make a difference to the people he cares about most, his base. >> it's not clear anything he did was technically illegal. >> that's a whole -- they're going to look for it but that's the crazy thing about these tax

laws. especially real estate taxes. >> i'm far from being a tax lawyer. but i will say i'm a pretty careful student of trump. what i find interesting is that remember, he didn't release his tax returns during the 2016 campaign because he said he was under audit. if new york state opens an investigation into whether he was violating tax rules, i could easily see in 2020 he'll say, i'm not releasing my returns because i'm under investigation. >> the other thing, it's very possible he sit twlts and says, and owns it. >> yeah. you're darn right. because they're always trying to take money from me. >> yeah, i don't know why he would feel like he would endure some type of consequences for not owning it. at least from those who are already with him. the president has made it very clear that his campaign approach to 2020, it's not really winning people who aren't already on his team. it's keeping those who are already there. the problem is there are not enough people already there as it looks right now for him to be

victorious in 2020. >> the thing that should trouble a bunch of other rich people is the fact that i think you're going to have lawmakers that are going to look at the different loopholes and think, you know what it's time for trump family reform of the estate tax code. >> especially if november turns out to be a bit of a blue wave, i would not be surprised if they start taking a look at some of this stuff. it's pretty outrageous. trump takes advantage of these things, the average person can't take advantage of. >> you're saying duncan hunter is taking notes? >> maybe not duncan hunter. >> we're all laughing. why are we in a place where this doesn't matter? and isn't it sad? >> it's crazy. >> part of it has to do with the tribalism in our politics that we talk about all the time. another part is there's so many different investigations and negative news stories about donald trump that eventually they all start to crowd each other out. one big report that involves a lot of investigation from "the

new york times" maybe doesn't rise to the level of, say, the stormy daniels scandal. >> but do you realize that on election night, duncan hunter indicted, could get re-elected. chris collins, indicted, could get reelected. bob menendez, who got like a mistrial because of a -- could get re-elected. i mean, talk about situational ethics for both political parties. >> indeed. i think it depends on which voters think initially what's most important to them. if we can make it very clear to vote es, not focusing on trump, but what happens when people who have means don't pay taxes and the impact that has on society as a whole. then perhaps they will see some personal aal connection. >> mitt romney did get hurt by this. >> donald trump has broken our politics. the question is, can we fix it? can we get back to some sort of norm where these things matter? i'm going to have to say something about the both ciderism that you just did. there are problems on the

democratic side -- >> it's not insignificant, i'm sorry. >> but let's not pretend that's what's happening on the republican side isn't vastly bigger than what's happening on the democrat side. >> this is the problem, it's situational ethics, that's my frustration. >> i understand. but there is a proportion to this stuff. >> complicated tax code. i got to go. complicated tax code. simplify it, maybe everybody pay. thank you very much, we'll be right back. ♪

ignition sequence starts. 10... 9... guidance is internal. 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... ♪ where people go to learn about their medicare options before they're on medicare. come on in. you're turning 65 soon? yep. and you're retiring at 67? that's the plan! it's also a great time to learn about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. here's why...medicare part b doesn't pay for everything.

this part is up to you. a medicare supplement plan helps pay for some of what medicare doesn't. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to request this free decision guide. and learn about the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. selected for meeting their high standards of quality and service. this type of plan lets you say "yes" to any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. do you accept medicare patients? i sure do! so call unitedhealthcare today and ask for your free decision guide. oh, and happy birthday... or retirement... in advance. but allstate helps you. with drivewise. feedback that helps you drive safer. and that can lower your cost now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?

we'll be back tomorrow with more "mtp daily." it's october, folks. october in an election year. it's baseball and politics. literally my favorite month every two years. "the beat with ari melber" starts right now. >> happy october. we have a lot of developing stories as you might imagine. president trump calling it quote a scary time for young men. this amid the kavanaugh fight. a top democratic senator is here. plus a report that bob mueller's now investigating why a republican critic of trump got hacked during 2016. interesting and below the radar. also, 50 cent is on "the beat." i showed him around the studio. we'll talk trump and how rap should handle gun violence, an important story at the end of our show. we begin with breaking news. donald trump's tax records reveal fraud and schemes to duck taxes on a massive long-term scale. that is the headline from a