so if the vote goes as planned judge brett kavanaugh will be confirmed with the closest margin in history likely two votes second to justice thomas in 1991. kavanaugh's confirmation fight is the latest example how polarizing politic has gotten over this last 30 years or so. i'm bringing in steve kornacki, msnbc national political correspondent and author of the new book "the red and the blue: the 1990s and the birth of political tribalism". my friend, former weekend colleague, i see why you difficulted us on the weekends to get going on this book, which is so good. my takeaway, we get a lot of books, steve, with a lot of wonderful and important information. your reads like a novel. part of my big purse now that i'm carrying around everywhere i go. fantastic. really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> before we get to details of the book what is your takeaway from all that has unfolded in

the last, say, 24 hours? >> yeah. sort of the polls that we've been seeing in the last couple days i think a precursor to what played out yesterday, and what i think will play out today. the polls were showing that it was obviously, a lot of opposition to this nomination. more than anything a polarizing opposition. almost a nomination, almost a tribalizing nomination and the numbers you say almost matched up with the numbers you see for donald trump. how are the politics of that going to shake out? all the democrats are basically going to be against minus manchin, comes from a state trump won by 42 points and basically all republicans, minus murkowski, lost her republican primary, a write-in candidate a few years ago. prescribe lines ho s tribal lines are holding in the poll and the vote. >> is anyone a big winner or a big loser here? >> wan of the problem the in american politics. so ugly. the tribalism synced up with party. it's eliminated all the old incentives there to compromise,

to come together. it's eliminated all the barriers to employing a lot of these tools that can stall government, stall legislation. nobody has -- give me the party in the last generation or so of american politics that has taken off, taken power, got the presidency, house, senate, the whole package and then been rewarded by the voters for what they've done? seems every time the voters give one party power, there's a backlash a couple years later. then a backlash -- just had a series of backlashes, reactions, backlashes, the trait of american politics the left generation or so. >> tribalism you stated started in the late 1990s. clinton one side of that and knew gingrich on another side of that. talk about that coupling and where that all derived from? >> yeah. no. i think obviously there was tribalism in different forms, divisions, deep divisions in this country's history. we had a civil war all of those years ago. specific and unique to the '90s i think was all of these

divisions synced up with party. and that's when i call the book "the red and the blue" people can feel those terms red and blue have been with us together. they haven't. they're about 20 years old. election night 2000. saw the closest thing to a tie election. bush/gore, 537 votes in florida. and that map held through the 3 # days of that recount. the country was staring at it trying to figure out how we got this divide and colors told the story. the entire south was red. the northeast blue. the pacific coast blue. interior was red. the first time that people spoke of red as a republican color, blue as a democratic color, and i think the divisions that came into focus that night, and the division we have been living with since, cultural, geographic, demographic, they were created and they synced up with political party in the '90s. through the clinton wars. clinton, hillary clinton doing health care. knew gingrich, the republican revolution. the government shutdown. the clinton comeback in '96.

impeachment. all of these wars and dramas basically told americans that when it came to the two parties they had to choose sides, and in 2000 they did and that framework, changed a little here and there, but really that framework of 2000 stuck ever since. >> and am i right recalling that it was our late and esteemed colleague tim russert? >> when was the first time red and blue became political colors's tim russert on the "today" show, not the board like today. like giant puzzle pieces stuck toal wall and talked about you see the red states and the blue states. the republican states and the democratic states. i mean, you can go back just a decade or so earlier from that moment and some networks were still using blue for republicans. red for democrats. in the '70s used yellow. colors meant absolutely nothing until that night in 2000 when suddenly they meant everything and that's the war we have today. >> you mentioned the board. have you back in the next hour

to work magic on that board. i've followed you late on election be night. epic fail by comparison. you're so good at that! >> from 2000, love the one we have now. compared to that. >> meantime, book "red and the blue" my new bible. thank you for giving it to us. see you in a little bit. next, did michael avenatti doom the case against brett kavanaugh? oh!

oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (vo) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®.

in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it. oh! under seven? (vo) and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? (vo) a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes.

taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar. common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ (vo) ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. it is d. day on capitol

hill. the senate poised to vote on judge brett kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court of course without dramatic changes. it appears to be a certainty when the full senate gathers for a late vote expected around 5:00 p.m. eastern. new concerns today, though, about the impact of judge brett kavanaugh's confirmation battle on the nation's turbulent political climate. a new article in the "new york times" says, "to the right and left alike, judge kavanaugh's nomination appears less like a final spasm of division, a sobering trauma, followed by calm resolution that an event that deepens the national mood of turbulence. the country is gripped by distrust rivaled by few other moments in the recent past." bring in eddie glog, chris whipple, and natasha bertrand, all three grad to say are msnbc contributors. good morning to all of you.

eddie, s eddie, start with you. your assessment where the nation is now? >> a moment of crisis. i think with the pending confirmation of judge kavanaugh we will experience the diminishment of another institution. we've already seen it with the office of the presidency with the election of donald trump and his subsequent behavior. we see it with the congress in terms of it being broken with hyperpartisanship defining the way in which the people's chambers work and now seeing it with the supreme court. i think the supreme court will face a legitimization crisis with the confirmation of brett kavanaugh. so i think -- and then which we look out in the country, i think the country is deeply divided, because in some ways, alex, i think bad faith animates so emergency of our public discourse right now. people don't trust each other and have every reason not to trust each other. >> hmm. chris, same question to you in terms of assessing where we are

as a country and the potential effects of this division? >> you know, i think steve kornacki is right. tribalism 1, reason and civility lost this week. peter baker said in the "new york times" this morning that this might have been the best week of the trump presidency, and in one sense you can say the bar is awfully low considering how broken and dysfunctional this white house has been, but, look, he's about to get a justice on the supreme court. >> a second one. >> he pulled off a trade deal that nobody thought he could get, but i think he is going to pay a huge political price for this. >> hmm. >> donald trump was in deep trouble with women to begin with. and all you have to do is look at the videotape of that rally when he mercilessly mocked dr. ford. that makes him radioactive to women now. i think that's going to mean a big price to pay in the primaries. and going forward. >> you know, natasha, the

"washington post" is reflecting a bit of what chris is saying here, because they write about the president using his bull y u pulpit to champion kavanaugh and accuse men everywhere. restraining impulses referring to the senate on process, the president ultimately followed his own gut, with the result likely to be, according to counselor to the president kellyanne conway a crowning achievement of his presidency. what is the significance of this? >> the significance of kavanaugh's nomination to the court and, of course, his ultimate confirmation, which i'm sure we'll see today, really can't be overstated. he is replacing anthony kennedy really the center of gravity on the court for two decades. so with regards to this being a major accomplishment for the president, for better, for worse, you can't really dispute that. in terms of what we've been saying how it really divided the country, we have to perceive

with caution when we say this is really going to galvanize women before the midterm elections. i think we also see this talking point emerging among men about how they are wrongfully accused and that's going to, you know, really provoke them and make them come out and turn out for the president and also at the end of that "washington post" report they interviewed a number of trump supporters at that rally where he was mocking christine blasey ford and they initially expressed trepidation at the fact he was making fun of a sexual assault survivor but in the end liked he was saying the quiet parts out loud, that he was expressing what they were all thinking. who this is actually going to galvanize the most in the 2018 midterms in coming up in less than a month is really a question that i've been hearing a lot over the last week. >> eddie, this last part of what natasha is saying there, how do

democrats now interpret the loss after seeing the president use these tactics, of coming out and bullying someone, making fun of someone who has suffered an element of sexual attack on her, and win? >> well, i think to echo david jolly, they can conclude there is no moderate wing of the republican party any longer. that the republican party is fully, fully trump's party. and they have to deal with them as such. the democrat party faces what may be call add rhetorical pincher move. the republicans are brilliant add declaring the spoils of victory. and then when faced with political power, they can cry victim. so, you know, you saw it with lindsey graham. right? that is to say, the consequence of elections, we get to appoint our jumps. accusing democrats of dropping this last-minute accusation, quote/unquote, last-minute accusation against brett kavanaugh he clutched his pearls and cried victim. there's a rhetorical way in

which democrats are always backed into a corner. they have to stop playing checkers and start playing chess. beyond that what we see across the country, alex, is that everyday ordinary folk, folk who are the unlikely voters, they're going to come out and they're going to respond to what the republicans have done. i think they're going to respond to trumpism and we'll see something fundamentally. we're seeing a fundamental political re-alignment and it's going to take place beginning in the midterms. >> to that extent, chris, if democrats win the house, we've heard congressman jared nadler vowing to launch a judiciary committee investigation is into kavanaugh. what threat does that really pose to kavanaugh if already confirmed and sitting on the court? >> not much of a threat i don't think, and i think it would be a huge mistake to keep fighting the last battle. it's time for them to move on. i disagree with what some have said here. i think much more galvanizing for democrats than for republicans, but having said

that, it would be a huge mistake for democrats to focus on fighting this war over kavanaugh again. what the democrats, you know -- i think, look, the ronan farrows and jane mahers of this year and others may come up with a bombshell. barring that, short of that, democrats need to focus on a couple of things, like a laser. they 23450need to focus on protg the mueller investigation and develop a clear message for the primaries and for the re-election, and i think that message needs to be, making the economy work for more than just the top 1%. protecting health care, protecting coverage for pre-existing conditions, and restoring honesty to the white house. they've got to move past kavanaugh. >> hmm. natasha, you have an article in the "atlantic" titled "the fbi investigation didn't go very far by design." in the article you point out republicans like susan collins considered it as a very thorough

investigation even though only nine of dozens of potential of corroborators character witnesses and the like were investigated. how do you make sense of that? does it leave room for a significantly different investigation by a democratically controlled house judiciary committee? >> it could. i agree with chris, pointless for democrats to beat dead horse here. yeah, the investigation was for all intents and purposes a sham. it wasn't really a legitimate, thorough investigation and people i've been speaking to say fbi agents are frustrated by this. the director even is very frustrated by this, because they knew all along that their hands would be tied. they were being used by the white house in a sense and by the sna tenate to give them koco support brett kavanaugh. but it was never going to be the thorough investigation that democrats and christine blasey ford and others wanted. blasey ford offers 20 witnesses

to corroborate her witnesses and same with debbie ramirez. confined over 40 people the fbi could have spoken to. not that they didn't want to, just couldn't. the white house and senate limited the scope of what the fbi could investigate and ultimately the white house is the fbi's client here. so there was really nothing that they could do. i think that's why there's been so much consternation within the bureau over just, you know, having been used by the president as a boogeyman in the russia investigation and now again at the center of this political firestorm with the kavanaugh confirmation hearing and sense being tossed around as a political football and always perpetually in a no-win situation. >> thank you all for joining me. thank you so much. good to see you all. a warning from a current member of the supreme kocourt a steve kornacki will join us to look at the new senate polls and

how democrats have a chance to take control of both houses of congress. ure. they baptized me in mud and christened me on rock, so i got tougher. they fostered a love of learning, so i got smarter. taught me to appreciate the finer things in life, so i became more civilized and refined. thank you, freedom and adventure, for giving me this rugged, civilized, wandering soul. on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. and now, during our fall sale weekend special, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus, free home delivery. ends monday.

yes. it's a targeted medicine proven to help prevent severe asthma attacks, and lower oral steroid use. about 50% of people with severe asthma have too many cells called eosinophils in their lungs. fasenra™ is designed to work with the body to target and remove eosinophils. fasenra™ is an add-on injection for people 12 and up with severe eosinophilic asthma. don't use fasenra™ for sudden breathing problems or other problems caused by eosinophils. fasenra™ may cause headache, sore throat, and allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth, and tongue,

or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens or if you have a parasitic infection. fasenra™ is a targeted treatment for eosinophilic asthma. that's important. ask an asthma specialist about fasenra™. billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath

and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart. why didn'at hilton.com,r family vacation on a travel site? i get the price match guarantee. and i can choose from their 14 different hotel brands, so i get the right hotel for every member of my family. like a doubletree for my cousins who love their warm chocolate chip cookies. a homewood suites for my uncle who likes a long stay. a hampton for my sister and her kids. that's a lot of syrup. and the waldorf astoria beverly hills for me. but i thought your family vacation was in miami? it is. i hear they're having a great time. book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. if you find a lower rate, we match it and give you 25% off that stay. new reaction this morning from both sides of the aisle to

the much maligned fbi report about sexual assault allegations against kavanaugh. let's take a listen. >> i thought the fbi report was very thorough. >> what we know for sure is the fbi report did not corroborate any of the allegations against judge kavanaugh. >> the public can't see it. it's a complete sham. >> the idea that senators were given 60 minutes to look at a report that we had to tear apart and share one page at a time so we could read enough of it to be credible before our 60 minutes was up was humiliating and embarrassing to the united states senate. >> joining me now is former assistant special watergate prosecutor, former federal prosecutor, nick ackerman. you just heard senate democrats calling the fbi's limited investigation a sham. if democrats win control of the house, they could consider impeachment proceedings. how would impeaching a supreme court justice work? do you think that brett kavanaugh could find himself

back in front of the senate for a trial? >> well, that's possible. first, it looks just like it would work in impeaching the president. there has to be first a vote of impeachment in the house of representatives. which means they have to put together evidence i think in this case. the only evidence that would make for any kind of impeachable offense is if they can show conclusively that brett kavanaugh lied in his confirmation hearings. then you have to go to the senate where you need a two-thirds majority to convict and i think that's almost impossible. i really don't think impeachment is going to go anywhere here. you're not going to come up with the evidence you need to say he conclusively lied before the senate. i think this would be a fool's errand at this point. >> i was going to say, my previous guests all were unanimous in that same thought, just move on, this is not something to pursue. during the confirmation hearing,

kavanaugh very much an advocate of presidential immunity about prosecution. he refused to answer questions about whether or not he would recuse himself from any questions tied to mueller's investigation. there are new questions about imparchialty coming up involving rick kavanaugh. should he recuse himself from any decisions regarding the president? >> absolutely. let's look at why he was appointed in the first place. he was not even on the president's initial list of potential a poies during the election. it was only afterwards that the president put his name on the list when he learned that kavanaugh was, one, against investigating the president, was basically saying a president shouldn't be indicted, that he was against u.s. v. nixon where nixon refused to turn over his

tapes. so already has taken a very strong position on all these issues. we're talking about a supreme court justice. we want somebody who is going to be fair and impartial and comes to an issue without proconceived notions. here, brett kavanaugh has already made it very clear where he would come out on each of these issues. >> and his future colleague, elena kagan, is speaking out about that. i'm paraphrasing, she says part of the court's strength and legitimacy depends on people seeing the court in this way. and that it is -- yes, it's an extension of politics to agree, but somehow remains above the fray. does brett kavanaugh's being seated on the court challenge what she said the court stands for and should be perceived as? >> there's no question, just by virtue of his last testimony before the senate judiciary committee and his attack on the left wing conspiracy and on groups that were opposing his nomination coming out as an

extreme partisan is not a good thing for the court. now, keep in mind, in the past, we've had people appointed to the court that weren't even judges. you had earl warren who is a republican governor of california that was appointed by dwight d. eisenhower. you had arthur goldberg who is an experienced lawyer who was appointed by john f. kennedy. maybe it was lyndon johnson to the u.s. supreme court. they were not coming in as extreme partisans. in fact, their decisions on the court showed that they could act impartially and fairly. i think part of our problem is we've gotten away from the way we used to choose supreme court justices. i don't think today you're going to see someone like an earl warren or arthur goldberg appointed to the supreme court. >> maybe it's because it's reflecting the times and where we are.

the fallout from the confirmation of brett kavanaugh is yet to be determined. -we're in a small room. what?! -welcome. -[ gasps ] a bigger room?! -how many of you use car insurance? -oh. -well, what if i showed you this? -[ laughing ] ho-ho-ho! -wow. -it's a computer. -we compare rates to help you get the price and coverage that's right for you. -that's amazing! the only thing that would make this better is if my mom were here. what?! an unexpected ending! (honking) when your craving strikes, you need your wing nut. ( ♪ ) no one can totally satisfy a craving, quite like your wing nut.

no one can totally satisfy a craving, so let's promote our falle a homecomingtravel dealame, on choicehotels.com like this. touchdown. earn a free night when you stay just twice this fall. or, badda book. badda boom.

book now at choicehotels.com