the house and with at this time power to issue subpoenas and a whole lot more. i can tell you we'll have special coverage up and down on msnbc and the beat. you can send us any questions you have for lawrence at ari melber and we'll try to get to some of your questions. that does it for us. "hardball" starts now. no deal. let's play "hardball." >> good evening. i'm steve kornacki in for chris matthews. as the partial government shutdown dragged into its 12th day today, president trump made it clear he is not down on his demand that congress fund wall. he opened the one and a half hour meeting claiming he would work with democrats before digging in on the issue of wall

funding. >> is there a number below $5 billion that you might be willing to accept in order to reopen the government and get this thing moving forward? >> i would rather not say it. could we do it for a little bit less? it is so insignificant compared to what we're talking about. the $5.6 billion approved by the house is such a small amount compared to the level of the problem. >> how long will the government stay shut down? >> it could be a long time or move quickly. it could be a long time, as long as it takes. >> congress reiterating. he tweeted mexico is paying for the wall. while the president gave few details, he accused democrats of playing politics. >> we're in the shutdown because of the fact that the democrats are looking to 2020.

they think they won't win the election. i guess a lot of signs point to the fact that they won't win the election. i hope they won't win the election. they view this as an election point for them. i'm not thinking about the politics. i'm thinking about what's right and what's wrong. and we noted a physical barrier. >> trump spent much of new years day slamming democrats on teritory with because they allocated no money for a new wall. he said they do not care about open borders. he later seemed to shift tactics saying border security and the wall thing and shutdown is not where nancy pelosi wanted to start her tenure as speaker. let's make a deal? nancy pelosi along with top congressional leaders and both parties in the white house room for what they called a briefing on the border wall and border security with homeland security officials. this comes as democrats prepare to take control of the house tomorrow with pelosi as the

presumptive house speaker. late today, pelosi said the house plans to bring up legislation to open up the government tomorrow. chuck schumerer in blaming the president for the stand-off. >> we're asking the president to open up government. we are giving him a republican path to do that. why would he not do it? >> bottom line, it is very simple. on our last meeting, the president said, i am going to shut the government down. they are now feeling the heat. it is not helping the president to be the owners of the shutdown. today we gave them an opportunity to get out of that. but moments later, mitch mcconnell said they would not take up the plan to pass.

with me, my guests, congressman, i'll start with you. we are in the final hours of eight years of republican rule of the house. you're the leader, you have to votes to pass it, if it would reopen the government. she said this would be a republican path. her words, a republican path to reopening the government. what does that mean? what do you plan to pass tomorrow? >> that means this particular deal, it was already approved by the senate almost unanimously. now we're going back. we feel that the government should open. there should be no greater responsibility for us than to bring ease to 800,000, close to a million americans that are hurting by this trump shutdown. so we're doing what they asked us to do. to govern. when it comes to money, what are

we talking about here? what would this money go to? a wall? fencing? >> well, the second piece of legislation provides for a cr, a continuing resolution that up through february 8th, and that will give us plenty of time to talk about border security. in the past, both the senate and the house have passed bipartisan legislation that provides relief for dreamers, for tps recipients and border security. every single time the president has shut it down. >> that's the question to me. there has been in the background here, and sometimes this spills over a little bit, but some smantic questions. the president says a wall, other times he says steel, slat, fence, where is the line? you call a wall immoral. >> it seem this president is his way or the highway. it is his interpretation of the fence which seems to shift every

single day. so this is very difficult. we can work with ports of entry. no one disagrees that we should stop human trafficking, drugs and illegal arms from coming through ports of entry. i think that should be a high priority. the most important thing we could do is to end the trump shutdown and bring back relief to 800,000 americans. they're asking for it. >> in his remarks today, president trump compared his proposed border wall to barack obama's home and to the vatican. >> there is a reason why politicians and wealthy people build walls around their houses and their compounds. president obama recently built a wall around his compound. there's a reason. i don't blame him. when they say the wall is immoral. then you have to do something about the vatican. the vatican has the biggest wall

of them all. >> the pre's bottom line, he said today, $5.6 billion. we have reporting that his vice president mike pence was offering behind the scenes about $2.5 billion. he seemed to wave that off today. democrats with the congressman here, to pass border security tomorrow. it looks like it is going nowhere further than the house. the president at other times has said it might be a little flexible. do we know when we are the bottom line is? >> we done. in fact, the president has moved away from compromise. as the president was saying, a short term tenning resolution to keep the government open. that the president indicated he was willing to sign and he backed away from it which is the reason the house, the republican controlled house refused to bring that up. that it would be an acceptable

number. so the president has moved toward a harder line, not a softer one. and it is not cheer at what point, it is not clear when he might be able to move from that. saying he would not yield from any deal that does not have wall funding while nancy pelosi said she would not agree to any deal that includes wall funding so there is no grounds there for compromise. >> in terms of the president's posture, we hear so often, he is thinking of that trump base that elected him. what is their bottom lien? is it definitely $5.6 billion? a concrete wall along the border that has to be there in some form by 2020? you have lindsey graham the other day saying the wall is metaphorical? is it just the idea that he's showing toughness? is there a bottom line with the trump base? >> the first thing to note,

number one, the president said mexico will pay for this wall. number two, i'm old enough to remember when republicans, if they were going to shut down the government, at least claimed to be fiscally responsible. donald trump is enjoying this. he is talking about something he's comfortable with. he hasn't given himself an on-ramp. as long as ann coulter and rush limbaugh are pushing for the wall, i don't see a way out of it. others have said it was a soft landing and the president said no, no, i'm talking about the wall. why the wall? this was the line that he uses in the rallies. it is sim many. of course, it is ineffective and crude but it is a great talking point for the president. so i don't know what his exit strategy is here. the democrats are not going to be giving him any money for the wall. he insists the wall is not a

metaphor. so i think the government will be shut down for a very long time. >> meanwhile, president trump made note of saying he was still in washington amid the stalemate. >> while i'm at the white house working you're out there partying tonight but i don't blame you. enjoy yourselves. we'll have a great year. have a really, really happy new year. >> and in today's cabinet meeting, trump repeatedly referenced his time many washington in an attempt on cast doubt on his democratic counter parts. >> i was here on christmas evening. i was all by myself in the white house. it is a big, big house. except for all the guys out on the lawn with machine guns. i was hoping maybe somebody would come back and negotiate. with you they didn't do that. and that's okay. i was lonely over the weekend. i was in washington hoping we would see a little action. i would get a call and say let's get together and let's work

hard. but they chose hawaii over washington. >> you had the president suggesting this could go on for a while. you just heard charlie sikes saying the same. mitch mcconnell says you pass this in the house, it is going nowhere in the senate. i think the world is looking at us as dysfunctional. we are an independent branch of government, duly elected and we plan to exercise our duties. >> i'm trying to see, if there does end up being some kind of, almost semantic ground. you're going to some kind of money going to fencing?

>> i think most experts agree that the wall would not work. it is a symbol of the past i think we should find ways to open government again. 800,000 americans. >> we have this stand-off. the reason i'm pressing this, it has been a few days now but he put this idea out of steel slat fence. and i hear from democrats, the wall is a nonstarter. no money. not a dollar for the wall. i got that. but i see you're putting money out there for border security and the word fencing does enter into it. is there some room for common ground? >> i would not support a wall or a fence. a rose is a rose by any other mean. it makes sense. it is humane. would it stop the crisis from emerging at the border. >> and susan page, what is your sense overall?

you've covered these before the government shutdowns. i think there might have been some expectation at the beginning this would be resolved by now. here we are. the democrats taking over in a few hours. you see the possibility. how long do you think this will go on for? >> so this is my sixth government shutdown. the first one we thought was the apocalypse. much less urgency with this shutdown. in the previous ones, they got settled because one side or the other thera other. i don't see the end of this. >> i guess that's the question. the president doesn't feel this is costing him politically. is there going to be any daylight between his assessment of the political situation and republicans in congress at all? >> well, there ought to be. how far will they go down this

rabbit hole? what sort of hell are they willing to accompany the president to? you're right about the terminology. i would hope people would open up a thesaurus. what can we call that it it can be called a win? the president isn't necessarily bound by reality or telling the truth. what can he sell his base? he can basically sell you a pile of you know what and say he's selling you a pony. so the democrats will have to figure out something that will save face. that he can call or wall. every time people throw him a life line, he is enjoying this. he is not bothered by the dysfunction or the chaos. his base does not care about the cost of the government shutdown or what it means to federal employees and he knows that.

you're getting this tomorrow. are you comfortable with this being the defining issue? >> this is not a defining issue. they control the white house, the senate, they run government. this is a trump shoub. we'll start tomorrow. we'll look at two pieces of legislation. one that will reopen the government and put people back to work. the other that will give austining resolution through february 8th with regard to homeland security issues. that's what the american people want. >> okay. it's 17 hours from now.

thank you. he's heading down to washington after this. coming up, mitt romney said donald trump has not risen to the mantle of his office. president trump's response? i won big and he didn't. i'll head to the big board to look at her chances. and harry reid is lashing out at president trump. and finally a question for republicans heading into 2020. this is "hardball." s heading in. this is "hardball. (danny) let me get this straight.

after a long day of hard work... ...you have to do more work? every day you're nearly fried to a crisp, professionally! can someone turn on the ac?! no? oh right... ...'cause there isn't any. here- (vo) automatically sort your expenses and save over 40 hours a month. without you, we wouldn't have electricity. our hobby would be going to bed early. (vo) you earned it, we're here to make sure you get it. (danny) it's time to get yours! (vo) quickbooks. backing you.

i am a techie dad.n. i believe the best technology should feel effortless. like magic. at comcast, it's my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. my name is mike, i'm in product development at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. i'm surprised he did it this quickly. i was expecting something but i was surprised he did it this quickly. if he fought really hard against president obama like he does against me, he would have won the election. does that make sense to you?

if he fought the way he fights me, i'm telling you, he would have won the election. i think people are very upset with what did he. he hasn't even got into office yet. >> back to "hardball." that was president trump today bombeding to a scathing op ed in the "washington post" by mitt romney. romney, of course, the republican party's standard bearer in 2012. he writes of trump, on balance, his conduct over the past two years is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office. it sparked pushback from the president's allies, but even his own niece piled on romney signalling the party is firmly under trump's control. speaking of her uncle, mcdabble said for an incoming republican

senator to attack donald trump as their first act feeds into what the democrats and media want and is disappointing and unproductive. according to the "new york times," her attacks stunned other members of mr. romney's family. with suggesting she would put her political loyalties over her family. romney stuck to his comments leaving the door open to endorsing a challenger to trump in 2020. >> i haven't decided who i would endorse in 2020. i think it is early. i pointed out, there are places we agree on a whole series of policy fronts but there are places i think the president can, if you will, elevate his game is do a better job to bring us together as a nation. >> and joining me, policy director, and from "the new york times," thank you. in some ways, this is a continuation of the drama

started in 2016. mitt romney was one of those republican voices who offered a scathing take on trump during the election. then there was a brief moment that maybe he would be secretary of state. when mitt romney speaks critically of president trump as he does in this op ed, as potentially he might going forward, does he convince anyone in the republican universe who wasn't already anti-trump? >> i'm not sure that's what the purpose of this was. i think the purpose was to put down a marker and say this is what kind of senator i'm going to be. this is what i'm going to focus. on this is way i will approach my relationship with president trump. less than convincing other republicans or having other republicans come along. there's been some dialogue about that. but this was about mitt romney saying, where he stands and it is where he stood on donald trump all along. >> so what do you make of it?

there is this other fascinating element. romney's niece, the chair of the republican party, colonels out against him on this. >> i think it comes down to, whose republican party is it? is it mitt romney's party or donald trump's republican party? i think the answer lies in the fact when romney took over, he asked her to stop using her maiden name. so this is donald trump's party. does that mean i think vom politically unsophisticated? no. i think you have two leaders with two very different sets of values and two different approaches to leading. and right now, in the republican party, there are many voters who

see in trump somebody who has the same common enemies they have. they see someone willing to take on those enemies. in today's republican party politics, those are the identity politicses that i think frankly are more important than the values that mitt romney described in his op ed. as unfortunate as many may see that to be. >> on the policy front, mitt romney talks about syria, national security, trade. these were areas, too, if you think back to the 2016 primary where trump was separated from where traditionally the republican party had been. a lot of voices were critical of him. he was able to get the republican nomination. romney speaking critically on those issues and on his character. i guess the other question is, whatever romney's motive is in doing this, in terms of looking at the universe of republican voters today. where is the market? how big is the market for that

style of conservatism? trade, national security that he's talking about? >> i think the market is a lot smaller than it was in 2012 or even 2016. but there are certain values that are emphasized there. for example, the notion of a robust american national security policy. one that would be very much counter to what the president is trying to do in syria, for example. i think there are certain elements that remain. this pro hawkish national security, pro free trade. as a hole it may be shrinking. the op ed also illustrated where mitt romney very much agrees with the president. corporate tax cuts or other areas. mitt romney is still going to

vote as a republican national convention. you have the president embracing things like protectionist trade policy which was associated with democrats. >> romney says, i am not running in 2020. he does leave open the possibility, it seemed like, of maybe endorsing a primary challenge ferry donald trump gets one. everybody can be send cal on the two-time presidential candidate who says, i am not running. he is using the present tense. is this a guy who just wants to be in the senate? he's found a way to finish up his public career? or do you read this more cynically that he might have an eye 2020? >> i know there are an awful lot of republicans, especially in the senate, who are looking what the the republican party is beyond donald trump? because donald trump won't be president forever.

whether that means he won't be on the ticket in 2020 if he decides not to run again, a lot of people have speculated about that. we don't know. but i think romney is looking at the republican party and seeing a disconnect. the values that he believes republicans have always fought and stood for. he wants to show that being a republican is not ball being pro trump. that's part of the problem. there are an awful lot of republican who's conflate those two things. you are either pro trump or anti-republican. >> the president took art baghdad shot at his now former defense secretary jim mattis claiming to have fired him. even though mattis resigned in protest last month.

i'm not happy with what he's done in afghanistan but he was very happy when i got him $700 billion. i home he does well. as you know, president obama fired him and essentially so did i. i want results. >> that's interesting to listen to. because romney says that mattis' exit, his comments on his way out, his resignation letter were the precipitating event for him writing this op ed. one of the precipitating events for it. hazmatis' departure, are those going to change the way that others, the republican party leaders in washington approach this presidency at all? i think it was different. he is so highly regarded.

and the way he embraces national security is so different from other republicans. so it is disquieting. the way in which it went down, that he was critical of the policy, just highlights how much distance there is between some republicans and their views on foreign policy and where the president is. so i think this is one of those things to keep an eye on. there are others who leave as well. with policy disagreements, then i think maybe you might see more of an uproar. clearly this was a factor that influenced romney and the writing of his op ed. >> all right. thank you both for joining us. coming up next, elizabeth warren enters the presidential race. how electable is she? this is "hardball" where the action is. this is "hardball" whe action is. s been excellent.

they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today. the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it's the final days of the lowest prices of the season. the queen sleep number 360 c4 smart bed is only $1299. ends sunday.

(coughing) need a change of scenery? kayak searches hundreds of travel sites and filters by cabin class, wi-fi and more. so you can be confident you're getting the right flight at the best price. kayak. search one and done.

we want a government that works. not just for the rich and powerful. we want a government that works for everyone. and we can make that happen. we have to do it together. i think that's how -- >> all right. that's elizabeth warren. 2019 is here and that means 2020, it has officially began. you have a democrat in the race.

elizabeth warren from massachusetts. we thought we would head over to the big board and give you an early look at what numbers do we have about elizabeth warren as a potential presidential candidate? one thing to keep in mind. a bunch of polls have been taken since the 2016 election. there are three names on the democratic side that have consistently sort of popped. a lot of it has to do with the name recognition. how well known they are. number one, joe biden, the former vice president, number two, bernie sanders because he ran in 2016, and elizabeth warren. probably the three most well known democrats. look at the polling. so with that in mind, the most recent national poll of democratic primary voters, potential democratic primary voters, was taken just under a month ago. our friends at cnn did it. we can show you how warren did in that poll can. we get it? up on the screen. guess what, folks. they don't have that. do we have a graphic?

let's see it. we've got nothing. we've got nothing, folks. i can't believe it. i had all sorts of polling information for you. let me just do this. let me tell you what we have. here's the thing happened late november, early december. you remember the whole controversy about the native-american ancestry, the dna test. basically what happened. one of the three most well known democrats, one of the three democrats who has done the best in the polling, she was only as 3 pert nationally among democrats in this poll. and you ask that favorable, unfavorable question. her numbers were markedly lower than sanders and biden. that was with all general election voters. it raised the whole question, the whole controversy over the dna test. will that be forgotten in a few months? will she learn valuable lessons from it? will she get her numbers back up or did that mark a turning point in her numbers? did it reveal something about her political methodology that

will haunt her in a national campaign? we'll show you the number. i literally thought we had the numbers as i stood here, introduced the segment. i didn't mean to set it up so elaborately and then have absolutely nothing to show you. life with this board. guess what, it is 2019 and it has never been less coopive. i'm sorry. all right. president trump is not wasting any time in 2019. here's what he had to say about elizabeth warren. we'll play for you. h warren we'll play for you ...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.

i wish her well. i hope she does well. i would love to run against her. >> she said she's in the fight all the way. do you really think she believes she can win? >> that i don't know. you would have to ask her

psychiatrist. >> that was the president reacting to the news that elizabeth warren is moving toward a presidential run by setting up an exploratory committee. it was roughly a month ago that her home town newspaper, the "boston globe," urged her not to run because she was too much of a divisive figure. on monday she responded. >> the problem we have in washington is it is great for those who have money. to buy influence. and i'm fighting against that. and you bet. it will make a lot of people unhappy. but at the end of the day, i don't go to washington to work for them. >> you're covering this race. let me start with you. if that bored had cooperated, we would have shown some interesting numbers. it looks like the end of the year, she took a hit.

it seemed related to the dna test. the willingness of democrats to vote for her had fallen. and the unfavorability number was up and the favorability number was down. in terms of the dna test, is that a blip? will it be forgotten or was there more damage revealed? >> it will certainly be an issue that she'll have to address. two things that happen. the conservative energy that tries to slur her as poke honlt as, using those racial terms that native americans have called racist. when she took the test and angered some progressives and some native-americans, in taking the test it acted like it is related to blood when it is cultural kinship. and she's aware of that. she is known privately with

native-american leaders, has heard out their concerns. whether it works, we're yet to see. i don't think we should overcorrect too much. there will be something for each candidate that they will have to address. she still fights big bang, she still fights corporate greed. sanders is sitting out there. how he sksful kouth she'll be in this field? >> i think it is really hard. even in 2019 for women to run for president. we keep learning this. we learned at this time hard way in 2016 with all the sexist coverage of hillary and people saying, she doesn't inspire me.

i don't know why. the e-mail scandal. i have a feeling, in the next couple years, if trump doesn't win, people will say but her dna test. the e-mails about hillary. little things like, is she likable, aloof, these things get said about women candidates. they don't get said about male candidates. >> i wish the board would cooperate. these are all voters. general election voters here. favorable/unfavorable. you ask that about politics tigss. biden was 54-29. sanders was 51-35. warren was 30-32. those were the only three that had more than 50% recognizing names and having an opinion. does that factor into democrats and their thinking about warren, even if you think it is up fair, does that factor in? >> well, i think she has two things running against her.

one is that they're a little afraid of her. they think she is too liberal. she might not represent the views of centrists. they need them to people off from trump. then you have the people say go, is she like schnabel she's not doing it for me. she's not likable. so she does have a tougher time than the men. in terms of the ability to beat trump, where would she stack up in your mind? >> it is hard to gauge. i think she is a very competitive candidate but probably farther behind more fresher blood. part of the problem is that elizabeth warren came on as a very authentic progressive in 2012, 2016. they were much more interesting in buttressing the top what

donald trump did with the republican party was undercut her issues. she's a market skeptic. donald trump is a market skeptic. he issues a bunch of mean tweets. she's been talking about her tweets and how proud she is so she goes to the mat. i think she is undermining her own value as a wompgy progressive economic figure. it seemed to be some pretty direct outafrican-american voters. some of the key states, you look at the path hillary clinton took to the nomination over sanders in 2016. >> right. for any candidates they'll have

to reach out. through south carolina and the south, but when you look at the midwest and turban centers. that's something that elizabeth warren knows. we'll see with reaching out to black leaders and making that the forefront of the pitch. i would point people the her announcement video where she highlighted the black/white wealth gap. that's something she's been very intentional about. i was with her at morgan state in baltimore at a historically black college where she said there are two americans. one that works for white families and one for everybody else. she is very, very cognizant of these issues. that's where she separates herself from senator sanders or some of the other progressives that she feels that's a could not is it the wednesdayy that she can make real i am roads.

with. >> kamala harris, corey booker. "the new york times" interviewed harry reid. he said he is fighting pancreatic cancer with not much longer to live. he was unrepentant about his decisions, most notably, to get rid of the filibuster. and donald trump said i think without question he's without question the worst president we've ever had. he'll lie, cheat, you can't reason with him. just terrible news on the medical front for harry reid and we we shall all the best for him, for his family there. in terms of the politics of this, it is harry reid in an era before trump was sort of, he was the sort of go to talking point enemy for a lot of republicans. >> sure.

a pugilist in action and before his time in congress. he was very much a fighter. he does give some short shrift to those one termers. there was a string of really awful ones. i think they would give this president a run for his money. his colleagues said pretty unequivocally, they could regret damage they did to the fbi. the senator, chuck schumer is already considering restoring that. not by any sort of altruism but by giving democrats cover to maintain the 60-vote super majority. so i think as a legislator, his legacy is a little bit missed. as a man, you can judge him. >> how do democrats look at

harry reid, he was their leader, where chuck schumer? >> i can't speak for democrats. i'm not sure which one they see as better. i think it is fairly normal and human for harry reid to suddenly retire at the most interesting time in american presidential history. this crazy pivotal moment, the way he described trump as this very weird commander in chief. suddenly he's out of the fray. he doesn't have the same power and he's watching schumer be a little light order trump than he would be. and he said their both new yorkers. they go in back rooms and make deals. and i think reid would prefer to throw fwoms way pelosi is more inclined to do. it is just killing reid that he is not in the ring. >> an interesting quote. dick durbin between schumer and the president saying, you can't decipher it if you're not from new york. staying with us, up next, these three will tell me something i don't know. l me something i don't know you've had quite the career.

yeah, i've had some pretty prestigious jobs over the years. news producer, executive transport manager, and a beverage distribution supervisor. now i'm a director at a security software firm. wow, you've been at it a long time. thing is, i like working. what if my retirement plan is i don't want to retire?

then let's not create a retirement plan. let's create a plan for what's next. i like that. get a plan that's right for you. td ameritrade. ♪

and we're back with the "hardball" roundtable. laura, tell me something i don't know. >> so, a gallup poll in 2016 said 66% of americans said that immigration was good for this country. this year, that is up two 75%. a new poll today coming out from gallup says. so that's contrary to anything trump would have you believe about the country. >> all right. noah? >> something the president doesn't seem to know, when he inexplicably said the soviets were justified in invading afghanistan, said the russians

got out and learned their lesson because of terrorism. it turns out the russians are in afghanistan, american brass has testified for the last two years that the russians have been providing material support to the taliban. so not exactly fighting terrori terrorists. >> all right. >> why did senator warren announce so early for staffing and fundraising? we saw four key hires today. that she made at a really high level. to really tell the rest of the field that could be pretty big. she's serious and there to stay. >> okay. wasting no time there. laura basset. noah. thank you for being with us. >> snchts whwhen we return, leth tonight with a question for republicans h heading into 2020. you're watching "hardball." re w.

i'm ken jacobus and i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy. and last year, i earned $36,000 in cash back. which i used to offer health insurance to my employees. what's in your wallet?

saved an average of $412," syou probably won't believe me. but you can believe this, real esurance employee nancy abraham. look her up online.

esurance, it's surprisingly painless.

let me finish tonight with a question for republicans heading into 2020. and it is this. how many of them are ready to stand with donald trump in a re-election campaign? the question is raised once again by incoming senator mitt romney's new op-ped in the "washington post." publicly, it's resonating with many conservatives who are already on the record not liking trump. privately, we are told, there are many republicans in high places who also agree with it. and outside the republican universe, well, not surprisingly, it's resonating there, too, except with some who say that romney and others like him aren't doing nearly enough to oppose trump. but there's also something familiar about all of this. i think back to the early days of the trump campaign. he would puoll at 10% among republicans. conservative critics would say,

sure, he has 10% but means 90% will never be with him. when he was at 15%, they said, okay, 85% won't be with him. then he was at 20% then 25% and 30% and on and on until he was the republican nominee. then those same voices said, well, look at all those republicans who still didn't vote for trump in the primaries. they won't be there for him in november. of course, they were there for him in november. republican voters were. now as the third year of trump's presidency begins, they are still there, it would appear. gall gallup's latest polling, 88% of republic b can voters approve of trump's job performance, about as strong as any recent president has been with his own party at this point. i say this not to claim that trump's overall political health is strong. it is not. it is very tenuous. he may very well lose to a democrat in 2020. but when it comes to a potential romney-led move on trump within the republican party, my starting point is skepticism. there may be plenty of party leaders who privately agree with every word romney wrote, but as

long as 88. % of republican voters are still with trump, few of them are likely to ever say it publicly. that is "hardball" for now. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> all by myself in the white house. >> trump circus pick s up where it left off. >> i think i would have been a good general, but who knows. >> as democrats take over the house. >> we can go through this back and forth, no. how many more times can we say no? nothing for the wall. >> tonight, the new balance of power facing the president. >> tomorrow we will bring to the floor legislation which will open up government. >> and just how long will the trump shutdown last? >> how long are you willing to keep the government shut down then? >> as long as it takes. plus -- >> mitt is tough. he's smart. he's sharp. >> what to make of senator romney's preemptive attack. >> he was enfordorsining me. i wasn't enforcing him. as elizabeth warren enters the fray --