this sunday, articles of impeachment. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 noes. >> democrats approve charges that president trump abused his power and obstructed congress. >> today is a solemn, sad day. >> this after days of debate and acrimony. >> it's not just an attack on the presidency. it's an attack on us. >> come on. get real. be serious. we know exactly what happened here. >> mr. trump denounces the vote with a warning. >> some day there will be a democrat president, and there will be a republican house. and i suspect they're going to remember it. >> my guest this morning, democratic senator chris coons of delaware, and republican senator pat toomey of pennsylvania. >> plus, impeachment and the voters. >> has he earned the benefit of the doubt? >> he's squandered it so often, it's unlikely that he's

innocent. >> i don't think this is shaking the pillars of democracy such that it warrants impeachment. >> the nbc news county to county project. voters in grand rapids, michigan, talk about how impeachment is or is not impacting their vote for president. >> also, boris johnson's landslide victory. >> we did it. we did it. we pummed it off, didn't we. >> are there warning signs in labour's crushing defeat in britain for democrats in america in 2020? joining me for insight and analysis are peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times." danielle pletka of the american enterprise institute. eddie glaude jr. of princeton university. and nbc news correspondent, heidi przybyla. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> good sunday morning. consider this, for only the

fourth time in american history, a president of the united states is facing impeachment. and our national response has been whatever. everything that's happened, the house announcing two articles of impeachment against president trump. the president attacking the fbi, joined by his attorney general, even after the bureau was cleared of political bias in the launching of the russia investigation. president trump that same day meeting with russia's foreign minister, finally, the house judiciary committee voting to send the impeachment articles to the house for a vote this week. all of it felt so strangely normal. as is what's about to happen. house is all but certainly to impeaecach mr. trump and then t senate is going to acquit him. it leaves us wondering whether we have lost our capacity to be shocked or moved or outraged anymore. no matter what happens, donald trump will not be president forever. the guess is what will we as a nation look like when we come out at the other side of this drama. >> mr. chairman, there are 23 ayes and 17 noes.

>> after a week of contentious debate -- >> this is a just travesty and a sham from day one. >> no president is supposed to be a dictator. >> a predictable result. >> the house judiciary committee has voted articles of impeachment against the president. for abuse of power and obstruction of congress. >> now, both parties are making it clear, they would like to vote and move on. >> circuit judges. lower drug prices. >> defense spending. >> cutting taxes. >> in the house, democrats have sandwiched an impeachment vote on wednesday between funding the government and passing a revised u.s./mexico/canada trade agreement. democrats are running ads defending on everything but impeachment. >> you have to fight like hell to make things better. thank him for fighting to lower drug prices. >> and choosing to let every member vote their conscience. rather than whipping votes. >> i haven't decided. this has been a busy week in washington. actually been a lot of good

bipartisan wins we got. >> i didn't run to impeachment. i ran to fight for oklahoma for education, for health care, for these things. and that's where i have been spending my time. >> the president nursing resentment about his inevitable impeachment set a record this week tweeting more than 400 times. 123 tweets on thursday alone. but senate republican leaders with an eye on their more vulnerable members are making it clear the trial planned for january will be brief. >> you can certainly make a case for making it shorter rather than longer since it's such a weak case. >> this thing will come to the senate. and it will die quickly. and i will do everything i can to make it die quickly. >> i'll do long or short. i have heard mitch, i have heard lindssase lindsey. they're in agreement on some concept. i'll do whatever they want to do. >> with a senate acquittal almost guaranteed, what will the political aftermath look like? this impeachment debate has rallied most of the party behind the president, forcing even swing district republicans to borrow his language. >> it's a sham.

>> this is a sham. >> much of this is a sham. >> but on the senate side, the vulnerable republicans have been able to stay silent so dpar. meanwhile, swing state democrats are using the same language they used in 2018. >> i'll stand with the president and next to the president when he does something right, but i'll stand up to him when he does something wrong. >> and the president's 2020 opponents are weighing how to capitalize on the democratic base anger while offering a vision about something other than trump to the rest of the country. >> how is my life going to be different if your president versus one of the others? and our message is about preparing for an america after trump. >> and joining me now is democratic senator chris coons of delaware, and member of the senate judiciary committee. senator coons, welcome back to "meet the press." >> good to be with you. >> let me start with what you would like to see from a senate trial. but try to address it this way. it feels like to many americans,

we already know what the outcome is going to be. and in fact, it feels as if the process in some ways, the leaders in capitol hill, both on the house democratic side and the senate republican side have decided to try to shorten everything, right? shorten the investigation process, shorten the trial. where does that leave us? >> well, chuck, that's a great question. what needs to happen next, now that it's clear that the house is going to vote out two articles of impeachment and we will likely for only the third time in our history have president trump on trial in front of the senate early next year. majority leader mcconnell needs to sit down with chuck schumer and negotiate over exactly what the terms of this trial will be. the american people deserve the truth, not political theater. and so i think all of us know what would constitute a fair and a reasonable, serious and open trial. in the house, we saw lots and lots of evidence, witnesses and documents that supported the charges against the president. and the president really stonewalled making any defensive

case. those of us who will be sitting as jurors owe it to history to keep an open mind, and if the president participates, to give him a chance to make his case. but this has to start with senators mcconnell and schumer sitting down and beginning a real bipartisan negotiation about what rules will govern this trial. >> let me play for you something senator mcconnell said. senator mcconnell said he's working -- not negotiating with senator schumer but with lawyers at the white house. let me play the bite right now. >> exactly how we go forward, i'm going to coordinate with the president's lawyers, so there won't be any difference between us on how to do this. we all know how it's going to end. >> do you see any problem with mitch mcconnell coordinating with the president's lawyers? >> well, i certainly think what he should start bying to is trying to show the american people in history this is a serious trial. try to imagine a typical trial in a typical courtroom where the person who is the foreman of the

jury is literally talking to the defendant's attorneys day in and day out. i just think in the best interest of the senate and of the american people, what we need here is a small number, four or more, of republican senators who go to majority leader mcconnell and say instead of simply coordinating with president trump, you should work across the aisle, try to get unanimity as what happened in the bill clinton trial. >> are you comfortable with a trial with no witnesses? >> look, there's lots of evidence that's already been presented in the house. i think this is something that ought to be worked out between the two parties. and that schumer and mcconnell should come to an agreement as to exactly what the scope and length of the trial will be. if it's dismissed on the first day, obviously, that's not a full and fair trial. but the details, that really ought to be up to the majority and minority. you know, chuck, i really miss the voice of john mccain in these moments. he was the sort of senator who was able to call his colleagues

to put our national security and our country over party. >> our politics has become so tribal now. think, you have a democratic member of congress who is now going to switch parties. and it may be simply because he couldn't politically survive in the democratic party by opposing impeachment. is that -- what does that tell you? should the democratic party be a big enough tent that you can vote against impeachment and stay a good standing member of the democratic party or not? >> well, i do think we need to have a wider aperture for our politics in america. and less purity tests, but that particular case is someone who is under water, as you referenced, by i think 26 points among his own constituency among the democrats in his district. it's a very conservative district. i do think that leader pelosi wouldn't be moving forward with impeachment if president trump hadn't forced her hand by committing an unprecedented and

pretty striking act of dangling military aid over a vulnerable ally to try to get out dirt on his strongest political opponent. and whether or not one or two members of the house caucus vote against it, i think it will come out of the house with an overwhelming vote. >> let me ask you this, though. do you think it's an odd picture to paint if you're impeaching the president of the united states, you believe he's an existential threat to the republic, to the constitution. and then literally, the next hour, you're cutting a deal with him on usmca and nafta 2.0. is that sending a mixed message to the country? >> well, what i hear up and down the state of delaware as i have done town halls this year is that folks expect me to remain a principled democrat, to stand by the core principles that i ran on when i first ran for office. but to also work across the aisle. and to try to get things done. to try to pass laws that deal with the kitchen table issues

that affect most americans, whether it's high prescription drug prices or gun violence threatening our kids at school or the opioid crisis. and the fact that we're able to continue legislating together, i think, is encouraging to the average american. >> let me ask you this. kyle cheney, politico, wrote the following. i would like to get you to respond. >> what happens when a remorseless president commits the same behavior that got him impeached in the first time, only this time after the house has already deployed the most potent weapon in its arsenal? >> that's one of my real concerns, chuck. the only reason that speaker pelosi changed her position and supported moving ahead with an impeachment inquiry was because what donald trump is alleged to have done, and all evidence points to him having done it, which is to invite foreign interference in our next election. undermines the very core of our democracy, which is free and fair elections where foreign parties aren't influencing the outcome. if he is ultimately exonerated in the senate, if the senate

republican majority refuses to discipline him through impeachment, he will be unbounded. and i am gravely concerned about what else he might do between now and the 2020 election when there are no restrictions on his behavior. >> what lessons do you take from labour's crushing defeat in the uk? >> well, you know, we have a lot in common, language, culture, legal systems, but we are different country said. i think it shows that an electorate even in this difficult and divided time is looking for a concrete and clear plan that they think are achievable and enactable, and labour got just too far out to gain the support of a majority of britons. i think that's a cautionary note. that's why i continue to support joe biden, who i think is our most promising democratic candidate for president. >> senator chris coons, democrat from delaware. joe biden's home state, as you just mentioned there. thanks for coming on and sharing your views. >> thanks, chuck.

>> joining me now from the other side of the aisle and a neighboring senate, republican senator pat toomey of pennsylvania. >> good to see you. >> i primarily want to talk about usmca and china trade, but let me ask you about the length of the trial, the process of the trial. appropriate for senator mitch mcconnell to be working with the president's lawyers on how this trial should go? >> i think it's appropriate to make sure that the president gets a fair trial here. >> okay. >> and i think that's the idea. i think it would be extremely inappropriate to put a bullet on this thing immediately when it comes over. i think we ought to hear what the house impeachment managers have to say. give the president's attorneys an opportunity to make the defense, and then make a decision about whether and to what extent it would go forward from there. >> are you comfortable with no witnesses? >> i'm not comfortable making that decision now, but it might come to that. there might be a lot of agreement on the facts in the case that could be stipulated. there's a big disagreement about what rises to the left of impeachment. after the arguments are made,

that's the time to decide whether witnesses are necessary. >> you're a veteran of this town, both chambers you have served in. it was remarkable to me that somehow in a week of impeachment, we kind of got an agreement on funding. what do you make of the fact that all of a sudden congress was functional for a week? >> what i make of that is that there's a pretty good handful of something on the order of 30 house democrats who represent districts that donald trump carried in 2016 and is likely to carry again, and for them to go home to their electorate and say the one thing i did was impeach the president you like was probably not a politically sustainable thing. so i think that put pressure on speaker pelosi to eventually come to terms. >> you may be the lone vote on the republican side against new nafta usmca. you don't like it at all. you feel as if you have called it -- you believe it's a step backwards in trade. explain what you mean by that.

>> let's start with what nafta is. it's a free trade agreement. zero tariffs. >>ia speak about it in present tense. >> we enacted it through legislation, so it's the law of the land. and it's a free and fair trade agreement. it's completely reciprocal. there's zero tariffs on manufactured goods, zero on almost all agriculture goods, which resulted in a 500% increase in exports. and somehow, this was unacceptable to the administration, and i think we should ask the question why. the reason is because we were importing even more from mexico than we sell to them. we had a trade deficit. we have a trade deficit with mexico, and the purpose of renegotiating nafta was to diminish trade with mexico so as to diminish the deficit. that's the wrong direction to go on trade. and if you look -- >> you think trade deficits are bad or good? >> trade deficits almost always don't matter. in the case of -- >> this president is obsessed

with them. >> i think the president is mistaken on this. i had this conversation with the president. look at the big picture, chuck. we have had trade deficits with the rest of the world for over 40 consecutive years. what country has the biggest economy, the highest standard of living, the strongest growth, and the best prospects going forward? we do. and that's because trade deficits don't matter. that money gets reinvested back in the united states. so unfortunately, usmca is an exercise through all kinds of new provisions to diminish trade and that's why i hope republicans will reconsider this. we have historically recognized that we're all better off with more open markets. >> the big criticism of nafta, though, and i experienced it multiple times on the campaign trail myself, even if you make the argument that you're making now, that overall, it was a net positive for this economy, overall, you saw some sectors of this economy do well, you know there are spots in pennsylvania and in ohio and in michigan where they didn't feel it. so the argument is, well, why don't you make the next nafta at

least protect those communities better? do you think this will do that? >> this doesn't protect any particular community except the auto sector. that's what it does. it erects barriers. here's the part that's missing from that analysis. it's absolutely true there are some people, they work was displaced and that's enormously problematic, but the same is true of technology. the same is true of automation. when microsoft came up with the word processor, everyone who was in the typewriter business lost their job. we could have forbidden word processors and still be using typewriters. we don't do that. instead, we say okay, how do we help the folks who used to make typewriters learn to compete in a new economy. >> is that what we failed at doing? i'll be honest, politicians always make that promise. we're going to retrain and all this stuff, and i think a lot of people say, that's never really happened. >> except what is the unemployment rate today? it's at an all-time record low. if it weren't for the modest recession in the manufacturing sector, which is caused by the trade wars, we would be in

better shape. i disagree, wages are not static. wages have been accelerating and the growth has been fastest among the lowest income workers because our economy has been so strong, despite the trade tensions. >> what do you make of the fact, i first met you before you were in congress. you worked for glove for growth, which doesn't have the same stance on trade as it did when you were there. >> i hope it does. >> they seem to have a different stance than you had on some of these things. the republican party is not the party of free trade anymore, is it? >> let's not come to that conclusion yet. >> donald trump's republican party is not the party of free trade. >> president trump is a skeptic about trade, and that is true, but if you ask my colleagues, most of them would say they're free traders. you know, a trade agreement is a complicated thing, and there are other dynamics that are going on obviously in american politics which might inform someone's judgment, but my view is it's important we preserve a commitment to free trade. >> were you surprised, because you made the point nancy pelosi,

her moderate members needed this usmca. every republican senator who's publicly talked about this feels as if pelosi ate the administration's lunch, including plesy, i think senator corner said that, you thought that. why do you think the administration thought pelosi had more leverage than they did? >> i don't have an explanation for that, chuck. but in the end, there's no question, it's a complete capitulation to pelosi and by extension -- >> is it possible he agreed more with trump than pelosi? >> if you look at these provisions, i don't think that's entirely the case with respect to the intellectual property protection for biologics, a new category of medicine that went to zero. there's none now because at the insistence of nancy pelosi, the labor provisions, american taxpayers are now enforcing mexican labor law in a way that increases the likelihood of future tariffs. it's very unfortunate from my point of view. >> would you understand if many

people read these -- this china supposed trade deal and say, huh? because they're a little confused. first, we have tariffs. then they're back down. we still have some. some are cut in half. it is very confusing, and it looks like we're back to square one. >> well, it is confusing because there are a lot of moving parts. but actually, i think there's some good news here, and the devil's in the detail and adherence to this, but china is a problem. i put china in a very different category than mexico, for instance, for a variety of reasons. it certainly looks like we have a truce. so that means the trade war and the taxes that we have been imposing on american consumers, at least that doesn't get worse in the short run, and there's been some level of commitment from china to address some of the real problems like the theft of intellectual property and of course technology transfer. so again, let's see how it get codified. >> seems like we squeezed them to do what they did before, buy some ag product.

>> there's a commitment to ag product, but there's apparently also a commitment to the other behavioral things, intellectual property and technology transfers and opening up their markets to financial services, for instance. again, i think that the question is, will they comply with this? >> quickly, your political future, i saw speculation you're thinking about while you may not run for the u.s. senate again, you may run for governor? >> i may run for u.s. senate again. >> you have not ruled out anything. >> absolutely not ruled it out. >> i thought you were a term rule guy. >> i have not imposed term limits on myself. >> 2022, don't assume anything. >> correct. >> republican senator pat toomey, thanoonk thanks for comg in. >> when we come back, the house of representatives is going to impeach the president of the united states. how does this feel so ordinary? needles. essential for the sea urchin,

but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options. like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr, a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections like tb; don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. taking a higher than recommended dose of xeljanz for ra can increase risk of death. serious, sometimes fatal infections, cancers including lymphoma, and blood clots have happened. as have tears in the stomach or intestines, serious allergic reactions, and changes in lab results. tell your doctor if you've been somewhere fungal infections are common, or if you've had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".

liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. i wish i could shake your hand. granted. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ wthat's why xfinity hasu made taking your internetself. and tv with you a breeze. really? yup. you can transfer your service online in about a minute. you can do that? yeah. and with two-hour service appointment windows,

it's all on your schedule. awesome. so while moving may still come with its share of headaches... no kidding. we're doing all we can to make moving simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started. th welcome back. panel is here. eddie glaude jr. of princeton

university. danielle pletka of the american enterprise institute. heidi przybyla, and peter baker, chief white house kroucorrespon "the new york times." you essentially wrote, had a similar theme to what rich wrote on friday, which is what we opened our show on. never has history felt less consequenti consequential. the impending impeachment of donald trump is historic. this is true by definition since a president has been impeached only twice before in 230 years. ultimately, impeachment is going to get swallowed up by the news sighal like everything else. >> 21 years ago when they impeached president bill clinton, it felt like that was the biggest story in the history of the world. this just feels like another chapter in the trump story. we have been sort of at def-con 5, three years of intensity, nonstop, hurricane gale force conflict in

washington. and this feels like yet another chapter in that rather than something unique. >> i think that's where our role as the media is important to point out where we are, take a pause. this moment in history, this president is about to become the first president in the history of this nation who will be impeached for violating one of the founders' most primal fears, which is inviting foreign involvement into our elections. we all saw it. we saw it on the south lawn. we saw it in the call summary. the only question now really is how the public is going to respond. the outcome is preordained in the senate. he will be acquitted. they may have a trial, short trial, long trial. he'll be acquitted and the question is, a year from now, how are voters going to respond to that? there's only one certainty, and that is we're going to have more information coming out. we've got all of these court cases winding their way through on his tax returns, on all the documents from state department and omb that are being withheld. we have not heard from any of the people in his immediate inner circle. that could change in a year, and the question is going to be who

is going to be more angry, trump's base, who believes he was exonerated, or the democratic base, who believes that he walked? i don't think we know yet because it's also not going to be the only factor that goes into the election. >> you set up, we're already in the battle of the aftermath, i feel like. >> one of the things -- let's pan out for a second, the aftermath is we're going to have a particular understanding of the executive branch. its power. if trump survives this, which he will, if it turns out that impeachment has no sting, has no bite, and we're in the aftermath, what it will mean is that there will be an unlimited, an empirical executive branch that can do whatever it wants to do. i don't know what congress' power will look like. i'm just talking about at the level of checks and balances. >> we don't know what he will do with it another. he may also feel chagrin, unlikely. >> the idea that was informing federalist 51, our very system of checks and balances, i think, is in question after this.

maybe i'm being hyperbolic. >> i think that imperial presidency, that ship sailed a while ago. i really do. i mean, it was a problem under george w. bush, a growing problem under obama, and it is under donald trump. what heidi said is really important because i think you neatly, although perhaps unintentionally illustrated the divide between how you or perhaps even we see things here and how the rest of the world or the rest of america sees these things. they're seeing, wah-wah, yeah, okay, we want to talk to john bolton, to mulvaney, he definitely did it. this is what he did, he broke the founders' most sacred vows about how our nation was to be run. yeah, that's not what a lot of people think. and to the extent that they do, they either agree or disagree. but they're really not interested in all these details, and i think that -- >> that comes back to the memed,

doesn't it? >> there's one side intent on persecuting the president and one side intent on not listening. >> we have the party switch in the news today about the democrat from new jersey who is likely going to switch over this. three months ago, we had justin amash who switched. let's think about this. neither member of congress thought they could stay in their own party and criticize their party. you had to leave the tribe, no matter what, you had to leave the tribe. that, to me, the democratic big tent is not big enough for somebody to be against impeachment. the republican tent is not big enough to criticize this president and be for impeachment. that means, it feels as if it's irreconcilable differences. >> our parties are more homogenous than they used to. rour districts are designed so your biggest threat is nomfrom the other party but within your party. >> with this democratic congressman, they're leaking poll numbers, this guy for not voting for impeachment, is going

to get roasted. which is probably true. >> the incentive structure has changed. 20 years ago, 30 years ago, there was an incentive to stand by somebody from the other party and say we have bipartisan legislation together. you wanted the appearance of it. you would be rewarded for that. today, it would be a punishment. that has changed the structure. you cannot drift from your party without penalty. >> don't think that is absolutely true in the house. i don't think we know yet how this is going to go down in the senate. we watched senator toomey, and there's still a number of republicans like him who may want more than just each side presenting its case. bring in some witnesses because to danielle's point, the reason why the public says wah-wah-wah is because they didn't see a real trial. they saw grandstanding bipartisans. in the senate, there would be a real trial where they can't interrupt, and they can't -- >> but it's unlikely they'll see that. you did bring up a good point. i thought it was interesting and shows you, there are vulnerable republicans. who are uncomfortable with this, too. he's like, don't get rid of this immediately. i'm not even sure -- i'm not

sure yet i want no witnesses. he was not ready to say we know everything yet. which is why mcconnell is trying to strike an odd balance here i think. >> i don't -- you know, i think what mcconnell said on fox news to hannity was unconscionable in terms of simply being the senate mujoajority leader. >> he was trying to send hannity's audience a message, i'm not calling hunter biden. >> for hannity, it's a game. >> i want to go back to the democratic party in a sense, remember, it took a minute for nancy pelosi to get here. there were folks within the democratic party who were not with the al greens, who were not with maxine waters, who were making the case that we need more evidence. impeachment is not a good thing. i want to be very careful when we make the equivalency. i think within the democratic party, there has been an ongoing debate between folks we used to call blue dog democrats and progressive democrats. it's a bigger tent. >> that closet meeting of the

people, the conservative democrats that used to be a caucus, and is now -- >> and the moderate republicans meet in the basement of the rnc in a small room. i actually have been there. there was plenty of room. >> i don't want to know why you were there, chuck. >> they couldn't get caught talking to me outside of the basement. >> susan collins, murkowski, these are serious people, they want to hear it. >> i'm going to end the topic here, but to remind people, after impeachment is all over, we're still going to get new information. lev parnas is under investigation. he lied to federal prosecutors, fails to disclose this transfer to a russian bank account. after impeachment is over, new information is going to come out that may help determine who quote/unquote wins this post-impeachment political battle. >> when we come back -- >> i think people are just tired. they see it as a political hit. it is very partisan.

>> we talk to voters about impeachment in kent county, michigan, one of the areas here at nbc news are focusing on our county-to-county project. -to-cot [ suspenseful music ] you have a brother in the second battalion? yes sir. they're walking into a trap. your orders are to deliver a message calling off tomorrow's attack. if you fail we will lose sixteen hundred men. your brother among them. we need to keep moving. come on! there's only one way this war ends. last man standing.

thisdoin' more...bout... ...with less. doers need energy. and demand for it is expected to grow. so chevron's finding more homegrown energy, more precisely. digitizing the way we work with advanced data analytics helping us develop more productive wells. and we're exploring ways to use renewable energy in our operations. doin' more... ...with less. more data and precision... to help meet growing demand. that's going to get a lot of likes. chevron. innovating to meet the energy demands of today and tomorrow. what are you doing back there, junior? since we're obviously lost, i'm rescheduling my xfinity customer service appointment. ah, relax. i got this. which gps are you using anyway? a little something called instinct. been using it for years. yeah, that's what i'm afraid of. he knows exactly where we're going. my whole body is a compass. oh boy... the my account app makes today's xfinity customer service simple, easy, awesome.

not my thing. you have heard us reference what does the rest of america think about all this? impeachment is dominating the conversation here in washington, but we have been wondering just how much voters beyond the

beltway care about the hearings on capitol hill. so we traveled to kent county, michigan. it's part of our year-long county-to-county project. we're following five key counties in five swing states. and for us, kent county is everything. we traveled there, home to grand rapids. my colleague donte chine here of nbc news and the "wall street journal" sat down with six voters, all republicans. most of whom voted for president trump in 2016. we wanted to know whether they're following impeachment as closely as we are. here's some of what we found. >> i don't even care about it. it's just noise. have you ever recorded a football game but found out the final score before you watched it? you don't even care. you know what's going to happen. the house will vote articles of impeachment. the senate will probably acquit. and so you know it's already baked in. it's not interesting. >> i'm thinking it's a done deal with the house. and i agree that the senate will overturn that or vote not to.

we're not hearing people talk about it in my circle. at all. i think everyone pretty much knows where everyone else stands. and you know, they're just not interested. they don't have the time to try to follow it. >> it is a complicated story. do you think that it's too complicated for people to follow? there's a lot of ins and outs. no? >> i think it's fairly straightforward. i think a lot of people see it more as an infomercial politically. and it's very different than like looking back on the nixon impeachment, which was really, really grave at the time. and was by the vote, very bipartisan. and this just seems like it really is political theater. >> i still think it's merited to understand whether or not the president directed a quid pro quo with ukraine and all the different things that are surrounding this investigation. it felt like for a minute, there

was a split second leading up to the sondland hearings where it felt like there was momentum where maybe there wasn't a done deal. maybe there was more to be uncovered, and the second half of sondland's testimony was completed and it felt like everything just stopped. we plateaued, and then the began to again feel like the game was already finished and we were watching a predetermined process that was going to be played for political gain on both sides. >> i think we're looking at the republicans posturing themselves, the president tweeting, for example. i don't think those are accidents. i think with great purpose he tweets at 2:00 a.m. to drive the next morning news cycle. >> he doesn't win a lot of style points. >> no, but i think he knows how to play the social media political process. >> grabs the microphone. >> i was saying earlier that through the holiday season, getting together with people, nobody is talking about it. i think people are just tired. they see it as a political hit. it is very partisan.

and if it's not one thing, it's going to be another. it's going to be another. it's going to be another. >> does this have any effect on anybody's presidential vote in 2020, one way or another? >> i wouldn't think so because we knew who trump was when they voted for him. it's already baked in. >> so i don't think this is shaking the pillars of democracy such that it warrants impeachment. i think my vote is more affected by the current economic situation. and balancing that against frankly trump's personality, which is not the best. >> i was going to say, for me, it's beyond trump. trump will come and go. worst case scenario for some, 2024. and i still believe that the republican answers are the answers to solve some of our country's problems. social, economic, political policies. so i would not necessarily say i'm a trump voter, but i think

the republican party has the best set of answers. >> cindy, you have a term for how you describe your own politics now. >> i'm a repulsed republican. >> describe what does that mean. >> i very much believe in the republican values and, you know, we need a strong economy. we have to support our businesses. i'm pro-life. i believe in a strong military. i believe in all of that. i also believe that we can do better in how we're managing our money. that debt, that debt is soaring. and you know, to hear mitch mcconnell say that they will become the fiscal conservative party when they get a democrat in the office tells me one thing, and it tells me we don't matter out here. >> did president trump, i know there's a difference of opinion at the table about whether it's impeachment worthy, did president trump do anything wrong when you look at what he did? >> daily.

>> is there anything in the impeachment inquiry you look at and say these are the things he did with ukraine. these things shouldn't have happened? >> i would like clarification as to his question on the phone call, was it referencing back to 2016 and asking for information from ukraine or was it referencing the upcoming election? and that's not clear to me. if it was back to 2016, that's not impeachable. >> i agree. and do we owe ukraine money? were we gifting ukraine money? were we lending ukraine money? who gives money without some kind of -- i don't want to call it quid pro quo, but some kind of, you know, here. hey, i'm giving you this. i heard about a problem back then. can you look into that? is that unreasonable. >> the problem with trump is, has he earned the benefit of the doubt? he's squandered it so often. it's unlikely that he's innocent. >> when you say wrong, i'm

trying to -- are you saying illegal? are you saying inappropriate? >> impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors. >> based on the transcripts of the call when i listen to them, i'm thinking what are they -- what are they so upset about? >> where do go? what would you like to see happen? >> i'm thinking an election might be nice. >> you can watch our entire conversation, our county-to-county voter discussion on our website, meetthepress.com. >> boy, has the american political landscape changed quite dramatically in less than three decades. we'll be right back. thousands of women with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of the body, are living in the moment and taking ibrance. ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor is for postmenopausal women or for men with hr+/her2- metastatic breast cancer, as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole significantly delayed

disease progression versus letrozole, and shrank tumors in over half of patients. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. ibrance may cause severe inflammation of the lungs that can lead to death. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including trouble breathing, shortness of breath, cough, or chest pain. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. be in your moment. ask your doctor about ibrance.

(make-a-wish volunteer) ok, he's coming,y) c'mon c'mon...ing! here we go... ♪ (little santa) somali...alika? (little santa) where's kiara? (little santa) i got this for you. (vo) when you grant a child's wish, you change lives. (vo) you can choose make-a-wish to get two hundred and fifty dollars from subaru when you get a new subaru. (vo 2) get 0.9% during the subaru share the love event. ♪for the holidays you can't beat home sweet home.♪♪ we go the extra mile to bring your holidays home.

we're back. data download time. as everyone does their deck ald in review pics over the next few weeks, we wanted to mark a milestone of our own, three decades of our own poll. so what has changed since our bipartisan pollsters first teamed up in september of 1989? well, in our first poll ever, here was the presidential job approval for george h.w. bush. 67%. that was before the fall of the berlin wall or the start of the first gulf war. only 17% of people disapproved of his job performance. bush 41 was garnering approval of democrats and independents as well as republicans. consider that with president trump now. the difference, unlike president bush, mr. trump has little support from independents and almost none from democrats. and as we have grown more partisan, we have also grown less optimistic.

in 1990, 50% to 45%, people said they were confident their children would be better off than they were. now, just 27% are confident their children will be better off. two thirds of the country are not confident. 67%. then there are the cultural and societal shifts we have been making over the last three decades. in 2000, 46% said it was a positive development that women were pursuing careers while raising children. 38% disagreed with that. by 2018, 78% said the rise of working mothers was positive. just 14% called it a negative. big shift ipjust 18 years. and the shift in support for same-sex marriage has swung even faster. in 2003, only 32% supported gay and lesbian marriages versus 51% who opposed. by 2017, support was up to 60%. just 33% opposing, another big reversal. this one in just 14 years. and finally, we're becoming more secular. in 2000, 41% of the country said

they attended religious services once a week or more. compared to 14% in 2000 who said they never did. this year, we found less than 30%, 29% of americans say they attend religious services weekly or more compared with 26% who now tell us they never attend. all in all, we have become much more partisan. our outlook a bit more dower, and undergone massive cultural shifts in only three decades. there's no reason to think these trends won't continue. >> when we come back, the lesson, if there is one, from boris johnson's smashing victory in the uk that they may have for democrats here at home. end game is next. my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications.

and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. 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, remission is possible.

back now with end game. all right. eddie, let me ask you where you are on what happened across the pond with the labor party.

jonathan chait of "new york magazine" f writes, whether a me moderate labor leader would have defeated johnson is unknowable. what is certain is that his delirious backers assumed his success. james carville basically said, let me put his quote up on the board here, you can go so far left that you lose to an unacceptable incumbent. that's the lesson. do you buy it? >> no, i don't. i don't. >> okay. >> it's certainly the case that the corbyn campaign presented a whole host of issues and problems. he didn't focus like he should have on the wholeli brexit question. but i want us to be very careful because my reading of brexit has everything to do with right wing populism in europe, in the uk. what is the lesson to be learned? do we kowtow to that? what do we do?

you have to have a robust vision. america is a different space. you have to have a robust policy position. you can't obviously go too far to the left. i don't think that's the lesson we learned here. the lesson we learned is that right wing populism is strong. it is strong and it is pervasive. we have to mount i think a concerted political and moral response to it. that's what i think we need to do. >> no. sorry. we were busy agreeing during the commercialgr break but we're disagreeing now. look, first of all, if you look at the demographics of who supported boris johnson, you're not talking about the power of right wingth populism or the rit wing or even conservative ideas. the brexit vote isn't about right wing populism alone. it's about the sense that people got left behind by europe. there are a lot of resonant themes with american voters. i think james carville had it

exactly right. if you look at what jeremy corbyn was promising, the renationalization of railways, entitlement for higher education, new taxes. he was repudiated soundly. >> let me oversimplify it this way, and you guys may disagree but let me offer it to this side of the table, peter and heidi, which is this. did voters in the uk basically say, look, one person is offering me more disruption, which ise jeremy corbyn, the other person is going to follow through on the mistake we made before, i don't like it but at this point we can't go back, and that maybe is trying to read too much in it but ultimately it's exhausted british voters over brexit. >> they wanted some clarity. >> corbyn didn't provide clarity. >> boris johnson said he would pull the trigger and get it done.

elections are not about a referendum on the incumbent. they are about a choice. you have to present a clear alternatively that's appealing to get people off their previous position. that's the lesson for democrats, what kind of alternate -- it may be about other things. jeremy corbyn is an antisemite or was perceived as that. you have to be able to present a clear, coherent position. >> bernie sanders wrapped his arms around corbyn. does this stick to him? >> there are huge differences between america's left wing and jeremy corbyn. none of the candidates are as uniquely unpopular as corbyn was. at the same time, in europe you have a combustive mix of huge demographic shifts and economic

distress. when those things are mixing, when there's a choice given to voters between left wing populism and right wing populism, right wing populism is we knowing out more than left wing populism, if the candidate on the left is perceived to be too far on the left. >> the divide now in the democrat party, elizabeth warren's argument was yes, trump won because the left didn't offer the disruption and the change that he was offering. well, of course you have others like joe biden saying, no, we need to bring the country together. here is elizabeth warren going after buttigieg and biden. >> unlike some candidates for the democratic nomination, i am not counting on republican politicians having an epiphany. i am not betting my agenda on the naive hope that if democrats adopt republican critiques of progressive policies or make vague calls for unity that

somehowth the wealthy and well-connected will standan dow. >> both biden and buttigieg essentially took the criticisms personally and responded. take a listen. >> anyone who starts off saying we can't bring america together is just throwing in the towel. >> i the thing about these puri tests is the people issuing them can't even meet membthem, right? if doing traditional fundraisers disqualifies you from running for president, then none of us would be here. >> ultimately it is about those in they democratic party who s no, there's massive change that has to happen, and those that say, you've a got to get past trump to do it. >> right. the argument has to proceed on these grounds, it seems to me. what happened before trump? before trump, we have historic levels of inequality. black folk were getting murdered in the street. we hadrd mass incarceration. the question, what does it mean toti appeal to what was before m

as if the country was okay. i think what we need is an agenda for change. and let me see this about buttigieg and others. barack obama's candidacy was revolutionary in part because he was a black man. in terms of the policies, it seemed like third way democrats. buttigieg is presenting himself as a revolutionary candidate in some ways because of identity politics but when you look at what he's saying, it's the same-old/same-old. >> unfortunately that's all we have for today. thanks for watching. we'll beth back next week. because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."

go to hilton instead of a travel site and you'll experience a whole new range of emotions like... the relaxing feeling of knowing you're getting the best price. and the magic power of unlocking your room with your phone. i can read minds too. really? book at hilton.com and get the hilton price match guarantee. and you may know us from your very first sandwich,esh, your mammoth masterpiece, and whatever this was. oscar mayer is found in more fridges than anyone else, because it's the taste you count on. make every sandwich count.

but we're also a company that controls hiv, fights cancer, repairs shattered bones, relieves depression, restores heart rhythms, helps you back from strokes, and keeps you healthy your whole life. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you.

welcome to "kasie dc," everybody, i'm yasmin va vossoughian. coming up, the political consequences for a president, the presidential election, and the country. democrats see defections ahead. but now the die has been cast. with 50 days to iowa, nine presidential candidates pressure the democratic party