>> always. always. >> she had a magic smile. it was infectious. she was smiling, everybody else had to. they had to. ♪ this sunday, full-court press. president trump names judge amy coney barrett to the high court. >> today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds. >> i love the united states, and i love the united states' constitution. >> setting up a high-stakes fight over abortion rights and thea affordable care act just days before the election. >> justice ginsburg must be turning over in her grave up in heaven. >> my guest this morning republican senator roy blount of missouri and democrat senator cory booker of new jersey. plus, transfer of power.

the president is complaining about his poll numbers. >> what would our popularity be if every day for almost four years you didn't hear any of this [ bleep ]. >> and refusing to commit to a peaceful transition if he loses. >> we do want a very friendly transition, but we don't want to be cheated. >> facing pushback from democrats. >> the last thing we need is the equivalent of a coup. >> from republicans. >> it does matter what the president says. >> and raising alarms at pentagon. i'll talk to president trump's former retired security adviser h.r. mcmaster. and stagecraft. president trump is gearing up to launch personal attacks at tuesday night's presidential debate. >> he's always different when he comes out because he's on a different medication, i guess. >> can biden stay focussed? i'm prepared to go out and make my case. >> joining me for insight and analysis are peter baker, yamiche alsindor, claire mccaskel, and welcome to sunday.

it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. with coronavirus cases surging again and the president's poll numbers stalled, republicans thought they had finally caught a break with the supreme court vacancy serving as of the olkt or shall we say, september surprise, they needed to unite the party, but just as they were teeing up comfortable talking points on the court, preparing to announce judge amocony barrett, once again, the president veered off message, but creating another crisis. the president's comments casting doubt on whether he will commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

we will have to see what happens. dominated front pages and rattled folks all across washington including across the river at the pentagon. republicans were forced to distance themselves, though few condemn the president by name, rushing out statements calling for an orderly transition of power noting, it's a hallmark of our democracy, a fundamental principle, it's happened forever, we're not a banana republic, and this from senator ben sasse, the president says crazy stuff. all this taking the focus away from his announcement late yesterday of the supreme court pick. hearings on her nomination are scheduled to begin two weeks from tomorrow on october 12th with senate republican leadership pushing for a vote just before the election. it comes at a time when president trump has largely failed to close the gap with joe biden in the polls. in our state polls, biden leads trump by ten points among likely voters in wisconsin and eight in michigan, above 50% in both states most importantly. it also comes as the president desperately grasps for something, anything, to shake up this race ahead of the first debate with biden on tuesday night.

>> today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds. >> president trump scrambling to get back on message and to fire up his conservative base. >> most important of all, she will defend your god-given rights and freedoms. >> if confirmed, barrett, a favorite of religious conservatives, would ensure a 6-3 conservative on the court. setting the abortion and the affordable care act in the final votes of the campaign. >> a vote for judge barrett is a vote to take away health care. >> "roe v. wade" is a travesty. it's judicial imperialism. >> the president's pick can energize his opposition. >> vote him out! >> while there's plenty of debate over when an abortion in pregnancy should be legal the president is com paining about his poll numbers. >> what would our popularity be if every day for almost four years you didn't hear any of this [ bleep ], okay?

>> accusing the fda of delaying a vaccine to hurt him politically. >> they're trying to do a little bit of a political hit. let's delay it just a little bit. you notice that? let's delay the vaccine a little bit. >> and for the fourth time this week refusing to commit to the election results if he loses. >> i want to see a peaceful transition, but it's got to be a legal process. >> questioning the integrity of the election without evidence. >> we're not going to lose this except if they cheat. >> on wednesday the president floated the idea. >> would you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferral of power after the election? >> we're going to have to see what happens, you know that. i've been complaining very strongly about the blots. >> some republicans pushed back. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, there will be an orderly transition just like there's been every four years since 1792. >> it does matter what the president says. the constitution says the presidency ends on january 20th. >> we're the united states, we're not a banana republic.

>> the white house attempted to spin the comments. >> i think his point of view is that it's necessary and constitutionally correct to nominate and confirm the ninth supreme court justice, that that would give us a strong safeguard with respect to the coming election. >> but on thursday, the president doubled down. >> we want to make sure the election is honest, and i'm not sure that it can be. >> the last thing we need is the equivalent of a coup. i mean, this is not who we are. >> and joining me now is a member of the senate republican leadership team. he's chair of the policy committee, senator roy blunt of missouri. senator blunt, welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> good to be with you, chuck. >> i want to start with the supreme court nomination and the timing of the vote on confirmation. i just want to -- i know you have said that you think this can be done before election day. the question i have for you is should it be done before election day and if so, why? >> well, what i said -- what i've said was this needs to take

all of the time it needs to take, but it doesn't need it take more time than it needs to take. i've talked to senator graham about this, trying to make arrangements as the chairman of the rules committee for rules, space, security, and other things, and he's laid out, i think, a plan that lays out the standards of past hearings and could be done before election day. if for some reason, it's not done, we'll do it after election day, but i think we're likely to get this done some time in the month of october. >> you have no -- you have no qualms about doing this before the election? you've seen -- polling's pretty overwhelming on this issue. a large majority of the american public do not believe that this president should pick this -- this president before the election should make this pick. it should be whoever wins the election. that is not an unreasonable thing for the american public to think, is it not? >> well, it may not be unreasonable, but the constitution sets up two standards to get on the court. one is the president has to make a nomination, and two is that

you have to have a senate that will accept that nomination and agree with that nomination, and it's been 15 times in the history of the country when there's been a justice -- a vacancy in an election year. and when the president and the senate are in political agreement, they almost always fulfill the two obligations, and if they weren't, they almost never did. so what would the deadline be? i said when president obama made his nomination, that not only would he want to make a nomination that he was constitutionally obligated to make a nomination and the other half of that necessary formula just wasn't there to get that done and now it is there. >> do you regret the hypocritical argument you guys made four years ago, creating this sort of standard out of thin air and then backtracking on it four years later? i know you guys came up with

these footnotes that said it depends on who controls the senate. senator blunt, nobody made those footnotes and it was crystal cheer to the american public what your views are. are you concerned that the party looks like hypocrites four weeks before the election on this issue? >> i don't know. the voters will have to look at that and decide. i said a number of times in 2016 exactly what i just said to you, that the two things had to be in agreement forthis this to happ and when it is in agreement, then voters have to weigh in and give as much direction as they want to. and in 2016 they retained a republican majority in the senate. in 2018, after two supreme court nominations they increased that majority in the senate and i don't know that we can make this decision or -- i know we shouldn't make it based on the politics of it, but what our job is and the agreement to get the job done. >> the president has made election disputes, one of the rationales for why she needs to

be rushed onto the court. does this not put her in a position to look like the court's being politicized? again, this -- the way this is being orchestrated, the way the president's talking, it's -- it could end up delegitimizing the court in the eyes of the public. are you concerned about that, particularly the president's comments? >> well, i don't know that that's a reason for her to go on the court. i think there are lots of reasons for her to go on the court. i'm eager to vote for her. she was on my short list the last time of people that i would hope the president might have nominated arcnd i'm eager for that to happen. i am concerned, chuck, about this idea that somehow the election won't be fair. i think the election may be complicated. i talked about this on the floor of the senate last week. i said the best place to cast a ballot is at the polling place on election day. you have all the information -- you know, if you'd have voted two weeks ago, you wouldn't have been thinking about this particular circumstance right now, but you have all the information.

you vote, you watch your ballot go into a counting system that you're pretty sure of, and then i said, but if you don't want to do it that way, you should take advantage of all of the other opportunities to vote, but we really should remember the other opportunities are a little more complicated and there are always questions about absentee ballots, should you sign the envelope? was the postmark correct? >> yeah. >> i think we're going to see litigation around to some extent the electoral college will help us once again, and it will take most of the stakes off the table election night and maybe a handful of states, we're going to have a fight about when ballots came in and whether they should be counted and weather the signature was necessary. and i'm eager for the country to work its way through that. if the president's re-elected,

he'll be sworn in on january the 20th. if vice president biden is elected, he'll be sworn in on january the 20th. at this point i'm sure there will an inauguration and i look forward to seeing that happen. >> you think the voting will be fair and it is going to be complicated. the president does not say those things. are you concerned that he has undermined the legitimacy of the election in the eyes of some? >> well, i hope not, and i've actually passed my views on this along to the white house. i think we need to encourage our voters to vote just like the democrats need to encourage their voters to vote, but voters should also understand that if you make the voting by mail or absentee ballot choice, it's just a little harder than going to the polling place on election day, and always some percentage of those ballots are argued about if any election is close, whether it's city council or the electoral vote in a state. >> senator, i want to actually go back to a couple of issues that may be impacted due to the supreme court, and that is the issue of abortion rights and the

issue of the affordable care act. is the issue that if miss barrett becomes justice barrett, that she would overrule the affordable care act as unconstitutional? >> no. that's not my hope. my hope is that on any case she deals with, she looks at the facts of the case and applies it to the constitution and the law, and then makes a decision and i don't know how you can predict any of that in advance. >> do you want to see the affordable care act ruled unconstitutional and totally thrown out? >> well, if it is thrown out, it will be months from the time the court hears it. we'll have time to think about that argument and to do something about it. i think a lot of the affordable care act is now baked into the system. the one provision in the affordable care act that i authored said we felt about nine or ten bills was keeping people

on insurance a, on their parent insurance until they're 26. i don't see that being reversed and i don't see pre-existing conditions being protected and being reversed. no matter what the court decides, a lot of that discussion has already been had. the american people have accepted that as a basic part of the ongoing system -- >> right. >> -- and we'll have that happen. >> if they throw out the law, it doesn't matter. you guys will pass a new one. very quickly, you guys are rushing to confirm a supreme court justice. where is the urgency on virus relief? >> well, let me say on that -- if they throw out the law, a november hearing does not throw out the law. they won't do that until some time in the late spring or early summer before you even know what the ruling s and we'll have time to deal with this. on virus relief, i think we're doing some innovative things. there will be as many tests produced in october as people have taken up until now, about a million -- 150 million tests

produced in october, more testing, vaccines that work -- >> but no relief from congress. >> moving forward with vaccines. >> but no relief from congress. >> oh, on the covid, i think that is a huge mistake, chuck, to get back to school and to get back to work, to get back to better health, we need a bill. we ooh very near agreement on all of the covid things that matter. >> okay. >> what we're not in agreement on is about a trillion dollars worth of other things. >> senator roy blunt, republican from missouri, i appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us, sir. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me bring in cory booker of new jersey. he is a member of the judiciary committee. senator booker, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thank you. >> i want to start obviously with the nomination of judge barrett, and i guess the question is what is -- it's a question that i've been getting. how are democrats going to confront this nominee? are you going to confront on the

issues that are at stake, or are you going go after the process? there's been some talk, for instance, of boycotting the confirmation hearings. where are the democrats going here, sir? >> well, i think the democrats and two republicans are with the american people. first of all, the process is not legitimate as susan collins he herself said. fair is fair. they articulated a process under president obama and doing another process under president trump and it's not fair, wrong and delegitimizes the court. we have people voting already and the majority of the american people are with the democrats and two republicans who believe this should be waiting until after the election. and, finally, you said it. not only is the process illegitimate and should be called into question, but, unfortunately, what's at stake here is stunning. i'm surprised, frankly, that you could keep a straight face. you know that this is about the affordable care act. you know that this court and president trump's nominee has

put up is that she will tear down the affordable care act. she has written about that. this is part of his litmus test, and, unfortunately, americans are about to see a supreme court that's going turn against a law that has provided, really, basic protections that the majority of americans really want. so this is about high-stakes, what's at stake, the right to control your own body, organizing, the right to organize into a union and it's also about a process that undermines the legitimacy of the very court that is critical especially right now during a pandemic -- >> right. >> -- and during -- it seems like a crisis that this president will precipitate until after this election. >> let me ask about process for a minute. in 2016, you said this. the senate has no excuse to

ignore, blockade, or stonewall. the senate must provide consent and swiftly schedule hearings, debate in an up or down vote. here's the question i have. which president should be -- which should be the precedent? the ones that the republicans invented in '16 or the ones they're inventing now? >> i guess you're asking the same question i asked to lindsey graham and to republicans. which precedent do you really believe in because you can't say one thing and then do another. barack obama was putting up a nominee 269 days before an election. 269 days. and now we see donald trump doing it while people are voting, in the midst of an election. we clearly see the republicans have shown the height of hypocrisy in what they're doing, as i said, even two of their members have said this is not fair, this is wrong, and we should not do it. >> what is your -- >> this is a stunning moment in american history. >> forget what the -- what do you believe should be the precedent though? >> i think that if -- whether it was a republican president or democratic president, 269 days

before an election, you should most certainly leave enough time for a hearing in congress, enough time to get this done. >> is there a line you would draw? is there a line you would draw to say, you know what? after when? i mean, you know, this does seem very subjective. >> clearly -- i don't think it's subjective at all. if voting has started and it's a matter of weeks i think that that's too soon. lincoln had a similar circumstance where it was days before an election and he did not put a nominee up. this is too short. you see the majority of the american people say wait a minute. just wait. time out and wait until we've had a chance to vote on our health care. wait until we've had a chance to vote to keep "roe v. wade," and wait until we've had a vote on union rights. >> right. >> these are the kinds of

things, that common sense you see the majority of the american people coming down on common sense, and this is what frustrated me now in the midst of a pandemic is a lot of people are afraid about what donald trump is doing, and he's injecting fear about losing their health care, which is a clear and present danger during the pandemic as he's written someone about talking about this and there is a clear and present danger that a lot of us fear that a president has said he's not going to honor a peaceful transition of power and it's a betrayal of the oath to defend the constitution and the united states of america and it's an anti-democratic thing to say. >> senator, do you plan to meet with judge barrett? >> it is my intention to do so. i think you know my spirit which is to sit down and meet with people and talk to them, and i'm going to make it very clear. one of the things i'll ask her is will she recuse herself. in terms of any election issues that come before us, because if she does not recuse herself i fear that the court will be further delegitimized. in other words, president trump has said i will not accept the result of the election unless i win. i'm going to push it to the supreme court, and, oh, by the

way, i during the election, i'm going to put somebody on the court as well. so i hope to have a conversation with her, and i'm blessed to be on the judiciary committee and have a good, informed dialogue back and forth. my larger hope is that the republican party realizes they're undermining their legitimacy, the legitimacy of the supreme court, and that they stop what they're doing and wait until the american public has spoken on the election. >> finally, i want to ask you about the debate tuesday night and i want to play a clip from you and joe biden from the primaries. a quick reminder. >> i put forth national standards of accountability. mr. vice president, i -- i didn't interrupt you. please have respect, sir. we have a system right now that's broken, and if you want to compare records -- and, frankly, i'm shocked that you do. i am happy to do that. >> i put it up there for this reason, senator, you got the best of him quite a few times. obviously the scoreboard is the scoreboard, we know who won the nomination, but what advice

would you have for the former vice president going into tuesday. >> well, you say i got the best of him. i say i saw the best of him. you know, after that exchange in the back room, i saw grace in him back stage during a commercial where he came up to me and showed me the goodness and the decency that's in his heart and extended to me some of the best compliments i've ever gotten from a statesperson in my party. i just love the guy, and moments like that don't build character. they show it, and i just think that joe biden has a chance to just lay his truth, his spirit, his character in front of the american people next to a person that even people within his own party, you saw it this week, can't stand up to his character and see him for his lies and see him as a danger and the great general mattis has said this guy is a threat to our democracy. general mattis' words were prescient compared to what

happened this week where he has menaced our democracy. i just want joe biden to go out and be himself. i have a lot of faith that the american public will see his spirit and know that he'll bring honor back to the office. >> senator cory booker of new jersey, appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective with us, sir. >> thank you very much. when we come back, the growing debate in the military if a disputed election leads to civil unrest. president trump's former retired national security adviser, retired h.r. mcmaster will join me next. but now a friend. still an electric car. just more electrifying. still a night out. but everything fits in. still hard work. just a little easier. still a legend. just more legendary. chevrolet. making life's journey, just better.

lookentertainmentour experience: xfinity x1. it's the easiest way to watch live tv and all your favorite streaming apps. plus, x1 also includes peacock premium at no extra cost.

this baby is the total package. it streams exclusive originals, the full peacock movie library, complete collections of iconic tv shows, and more. yup, the best really did get better. magnificent. xfinity x1 just got even better, with peacock premium included at no additional cost. no strings attached. welcome back. welcome back. senior pentagon officials have gone public that the military's role in a disputed election with repeated cases with civil unrest since may, the officials have been talking amongst themselves about what to do if the president invokes tin sur recollection act, which would give him broad authority to order the military on getting involved in domestic disputes. joining me is retired general h.r. mcmaster and author of "battlegrounds. the fight to defend the free world." general mcmaster, welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> chuck, great to be with you.

>> i want to start with these reports. we've had our own reporting on nbc news, and "the new york times," i'm sure you're familiar with both of them, that there's been hand-wringing among sunshine yore leadership in the military about what if and the fact that the president did bring up the insurrection act once already. what can you share and what concerns do you have? >> well, chuck, i think what's really clear for the american people to understand is the military will have no role in a transition. in fact, even talk about it, i think, is irresponsible and that's maybe why if you detect some reticence on the part of senior military leaders or those in the pentagon that talk about it is because it shouldn't even be a topic for discussion. our founders were very concerned about this, chuck. it's important to remember that george washington's grand patients fled the bloody wars of the 17th industry in england, and, of course, it was the specter of oliver cromwell that

was very much on their minds as they crafted our constitution and the separation of powers and the very bold line between the military and politics. >> what did you -- what went through your head on june 1st when you saw what happened in lafayette square? >> well, it was just wrong. it was more than unfortunate because what we can't do -- and this is really across the political spectrum, chuck, which really bothers me these days. we can't try to pull the military into politics. some of the things the president said i think have been irresponsible and often times the reaction to what he says is equally irresponsible. i think all politicians have a responsibility of keeping that bold line in place. certainly the military profession does as well, to be studiously apolitical so all americans have confidence in our military institutions and that also there's never any infringement on our democratic principles and institutions and processes.

>> i'm curious, when you hear the president's views about not necessarily agreeing to a peaceful transition of power, take us back -- how did you interpret that? you were in the room with him. you've probably heard him say some things that would shock people. how did you interpret those comments knowing him the way you do? >> well, what i think is that it's a gift to our adversaries, right? who want to shake our confidence in who we are. shake our confidence and our democratic principle, institutions, and processes. what i write about in "battlegrounds," for example, is that russia has engaged in this campaign of disruption, disinformation, and denial, and if -- if the russians can just use our own words against us, that's the best way to pull us apart from one another. >> the biggest problem, though, in the russia conversation has been the president himself. you know, he still calls it a hoax and all of that, and you, right?

i think susan rice, a predecessor who was the security adviser for president obama wrote this political division should be treated as a national security threat. do you agree with her? >> i absolutely agree with her, and this is why i think it is so important for us to come together for civil discussions about the greatest challenges we face. maybe that's a way for us to come back together as americans because as we're at each other's throats with this vitriolic partisan discourse, our adversaries haven't stopped, the world hasn't gone away, and that's what i hope will galvanize us to come back together and to reverse this polarization that's so damaging to our security and to our psyche as well. >> what -- let me ask this -- just one more question on this. when you were -- if you made an attempt to get the president not to say divisive things, how would that go?

>> well, chuck, i can only speak for when i was there, right? my job was to give the president the access to the best analysis across the government, and then to give the president options. once you gave decisions with his sense to assist with his sensible limitations of those decisions, those discussions were wide-ranging and oftentimes the president evolved his assessment of situations, and i think in many cases, made decisions on foreign policy, which was my area, not domestic decisions that advanced our interests and in many cases put in place big shifts in the foreign policy that were long overdue. >> did it surprise you that there wasn't a better handling of this pandemic? when you were there, you had a pandemic team on the national security council? were you surprised at the response given the preparations that maybe you had been familiar with? >> well, i think that what we saw is a breakdown in a couple of areas, right? there are three keys to pandemic response. one is to stop it before it becomes a pandemic.

thanks to the chinese communist party, we couldn't do that. the second is to have a biochemical response, our supply chains, and not enough stockpiles and the third area was to innovate and develop rapid therapies and vaccines. i think that third area is going to be a success. what we ought to learn from this, chuck, is, hey, we have a federal system and also we have a mixture of public and private health care, and i think where there were breakdowns, it was in coordination. it was in common understanding of, you know, d resources available, where the gaps were, and how to mobilize responses effectively. we have a team here at the hoover institution and we're working on that with some amazing grad students to interview everybody who was at different points of this crisis and to identify the lessons and

make recommendations in advance of the second wave or the next biomedical crisis. >> it's hard to say the words china and very quickly, but i'll ask you to do it this way. are they a competitor? are they somebody we have to confront? are they an enemy? how would you define them? >> their arrival -- and we must compete with the chinese communist party because the chinese communist party is not only stifling the freedom of their own people. they're exporting their model. if they succeed, the world will be less free, less safe and less prosperous. >> retired general h.r. mcmaster, i really appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective. former national security adviser to the president. good luck with your book. >> thanks so much. you got it. when we come back, republicans believe that a fight about the court will steer it away from the pandemic and the president's attacks. are they right? the panel is next. like crazy. you've got some allergic itch with skin inflammation. apoquel can work on that itch in as little as 4 hours, whether it's a new or chronic problem. and apoquel's treated over 8 million dogs.

nice. and...the talking dog thing? is it bothering you? no...itching like a dog is bothering me. until dogs can speak for themselves, you have to. when allergic itch is a problem, ask for apoquel. apoquel is for the control of itch associated with allergic dermatitis and the control of atopic dermatitis in dogs. do not use apoquel in dogs less than 12 months old or those with serious infections. apoquel may increase the chance of developing serious infections and may cause existing parasitic skin infestations or pre-existing cancers to worsen. do not use in breeding, pregnant, or lactating dogs. most common side effects are vomiting and diarrhea. feeling better? i'm speechless. thanks for the apoquel. aw...that's what friends are for. ask your veterinarian for apoquel next to you, apoquel is a dog's best friend.

whatintroducing the new sleepld? number 360 smart bed. now temperature balancing, so you can sleep better together. can it help keep me asleep? absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. can it help with snoring? i've never heard snoring. exactly. no problem ...and done. so you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove save up to $1,000 on the new sleep number 360 smart bed and adjustable base. plus, 0% interest for 24 months & free delivery. ends monday.

welcome back. panelists here. yamiche alcindor, lahnee chen of the hoover institution at stanford university, former democratic senator claire mccaskill of missouri and peter baker, chief correspondent of the no,xand co-author of a book that a bunch of us knew needed to be written. it's the big biography of james baker. it is fantastic. congratulations to you and susan, peter, with that. so welcome to all of you. peter despite me helping you sell that book, i'm going to claire mccaskill. claire, what can democrats do

about this confirmation fight and what should they do? >> well, i think the most important fact is this is an abuse of power over a thick layer of hypocrisy. not a good look six weeks before the election. they need to treat the nominee with respect to point out that the nomination is abusive, and then they need to really just focus on health care, civil rights, voting rights, women's rights. this is an extreme candidate that would never have been nominated before 2017 because it would have been obvious she couldn't get 70 votes, 60 votes, so i just think they have to focus on the policy and treat her with respect and make sure the hearings don't turn into a partisan circus. >> lahnee chen, can this confirmation hearing become a benefit to the president without it becoming a partisan food fight? >> i think it could be of benefit to the president. i think certainly the big question here is how does this play for, not base voters. we know base voters will get excited about this nomination. the question is for those that remain undecided.

look, republicans and conservatives are on the cusp of remaking the supreme court for the next several decades. it is a momentous occasion. the president in that sense needs to focus on this nomination and focus what it means rather than getting into the other junk of about not potentially having a safe transition of power and focusing on what the nomination means and that will be his best shot to get a political advantage out of this. >> democrats have public opinion on their side, and our wisconsin and michigan polls asked the question, should the vacancy be filled immediately, post-election, post-inauguration. majorities in both states say post-inauguration, and it matches national polls, but it is one of these things, yamiche, that democrats have public opinion on their side, but it's not the first time they've had public opinion on their side, but they're powerless here. >> they are kind of powerless and when i talk to democratic sources the only thing they can say is they hope to slow down

the nomination. but yesterday i was at the white house's rollout of judge barrett, and mark meadows said he hopes to proceed with this expeditiously and have it done before november 1st. it is clear president trump has no way to have any roadblocks ahead of him when he looks at this nomination, and i think republicans here are feeling very confident in the idea that this will help bolster and excite the base to try to get people excited about president trump. >> peter baker, i guess is the conventional wisdom on this correct? you know, i know that, you know, we're all looking at past results here and yes, the republicans unite on judicial issues more quickly and more often than democrats do. is this one going to play out the same way? >> look, i think you presume that republican voters have been to some extent disenchanted with the president, and so he's giving them a reason to put

aside their misgivings about things like the coronavirus and other issues and come back to the full. democratic voters were energized against president trump and the question was whether or not this would energize him more and every day we're talking about this and we're not talking about the virus and that's not a political winner and 200,000 dead and he shrugged it off without giving a memorial tribute, testament to the people, and i'm also thinking back to the first time the republican nominated a woman to be the supreme court justice, and this is only the second time a republican has nominated a woman to the supreme court. and that was last with reagan in 1991 with sandra day o'connor. today the motivations have changed. >> so true. >> the president is going with the most ideological candidate rather than the least ideological candidate. >> claire mccaskill, the history of 2018 elections continue to get written. did brett kavanaugh help or hurt or was this one of those unique situations that it may have hurt the republicans nationally, but helped them in places like

missouri? >> i think that's probably true. i think what really hurt about kavanaugh was the process. it really devolved into something that most people around the country said, you know, pox on all their house, this is a mess. and i think that was particularly because of the facts and circumstances of that particular nomination. i actually think this nomination hurts the republicans because of the hypocrisy and abuse of power. the american people know what's going on here, and you combine that with her very extreme views on health care, her very extreme views on -- i mean, she's written a dissent that a felon should be entitled to a gun but not necessarily entitled to vote. this is really somebody who is out there, and i think if that was exposed in the hearings in a respectful way i think it would help the democrats even more. >> lahnee chen, could this backfire? i mean, what are you more concerned about for republican senate races?

it is the hypocrisy watch, you know, you flip flop where you were in '16, or is it abortion rights and suddenly the popularity of "roe v. wade" ends up hurting republicans? >> i think health care is the bigger concern here, and even though i'm skeptical that the aca gets struck down even with this new conservative majority, i think health care is a topic, and you talk about 2018 midterms, and that was not a good topic for republicans in 2018. the more the battleground shifts to that conversation about health care, the tougher it is for republicans. if this court fight gets defined in terms of health care issues and perhaps in terms of abortion, i do think it ends up being more of a challenge for republicans. >> yamiche alcindor, was there concern about the way the democrats challenged the hearings or democratic leadership. are you hearing anything this time? >> i'm not hearing that. what i'm hearing is they feel like they need to be making the case more clearly about the judicial nominees and why the

supreme court is a key thing that should be on democratics' minds. if you look back, there wasn't a lot of talk about the supreme court. republicans have historically talked about judicial nominees and judges more, and i think this shows that the democrats need to be talking about that, about the fact that they need to be making it clear to democrats about what a supreme court conservative majority means for their personal lives. >> yamiche, lahnee, peter, and claire, stick around. coming up next, when we come back, president trump busted through the democrats' big blue wall in 2016, but did that have more to do with hillary clinton than it did with donald trump? robinhood believes now is the time to do money.

without the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood.

welcome back. data download time. as we mentioned at the top of the show, joe biden is currently beating president trump in the latest nbc mnews/marist polling in wisconsin and michigan, and he's doing so in comfortable margins, and those are two states that president trump flipped for the first time in a generation. it made us wonder why is president trump having such a difficult time in the polls compared to four years ago. 2012 may offer some clues. democrats carried five of those states by five or more percentage rates. in 2016 when president trump flipped them, the margin was very close. 0.2 in michigan, 0.7 in pennsylvania, and 0.8 in wisconsin.

those suggest to republican erasing the historic edge in the great lakes region or do they? take a look at the percentage of the vote president trump got in those three states compared with mitt romney in 2012. mr. trump got two more percentage points in votes than romney in michigan. each state, candidate trump accounted for less than a quarter of the total swing. he benefitted from those third-party votes. and the current 538 polling averages looks a look more like 2012 than they do 2016. in michigan, biden is leading mr. trump, 50-43. in pennsylvania, he's up 50 to 45, and in wisconsin, it's biden again at the 50% mark with president trump at 44%. and mr. trump's current percentages in those states, they're almost exactly what mitt romney got in 2012. look, mr. -- president trump was right to get credit for breaking through that big blue wall, but right now 2020's poll numbers look a lot more like obama's win

in 2012 than hillary clinton's loss in 2016. when we come back, biden's lead in the polls has been stable for months. can president trump change that in cleveland on tuesday night? t. [brokenhearted guy sobs] ♪ apartments-dot-com. the most popular place to find a place. and now your co-pilot.. still a father. but now a friend. still an electric car. just more electrifying. still a night out. but everything fits in. still hard work. just a little easier. still a legend. just more legendary.

chevrolet. making life's journey, just better. robinwithout the commission fees. so, you can start investing today wherever you are - even hanging with your dog. so, what are you waiting for? download now and get your first stock on us. robinhood. whatintroducing the new sleepld? number 360 smart bed. now temperature balancing, so you can sleep better together. can it help keep me asleep?

absolutely, it intelligently senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both effortlessly comfortable. can it help with snoring? i've never heard snoring. exactly. no problem ...and done. so you can really promise better sleep? not promise... prove save up to $1,000 on the new sleep number 360 smart bed and adjustable base. plus, 0% interest for 24 months & free delivery. ends monday.

>> welcome >> welcome back. tuesday is the first presidential debate. peter baker, one of the findings we found in our polling about the presidential debates this year -- i'm going to put it up -- is how little importance it is to voters this cycle as compared to previous. we recorded the lowest ever

number on the question of how important are the presidential debates to you. less than 30% said it was. 38% said it was important, and 2012 it was 38%. when you have 90% of people saying they've made up their mind, perhaps we do understand that, but, peter, what do you think the significance is of tuesday night? >> well, i think you're right, chuck. i think the electorate has made up its mind, most of it, and they are pre-locked in for four years. americans have decided long ago what they think of donald trump, and they like him or hate him and that has really changed. we haven't seen that with any other president in modern times and those numbers have remained remarkably static and it's one of the only opportunities for that to change potentially. you see the president already trying to set up expectations. he's already tweeted this morning saying that joe biden should take a drug test. he's trying to explain good performance saying if he's doing

well, it must be because he's somehow on a performance drug. it's an extraordinary thing. he tried with hillary clinton four years ago. incumbent presidents don't tend to do well in their first debate. they don't take it seriously, and they are overconfident, and that's certainly what happened with ronald reagan in 1984, and it happened with barack obama and george w. bush. this president is not preparing for the debate and he said he doesn't need to prepare. we'll see what happens. i think you're right. this is a chance to change things, but things have been remarkably static. >> claire mccaskill, your advice to joe biden after reading this "washington post" story about the debates, trump was told associates that he wants to talk about specifically about his son hunter biden. biden is just not there. the president is so eager to lay into his rival that he's called aides to test out various attacks. i think we know what's coming. it's an onslaught. it's a rhetorical onslaught, and

we've seen him do it before. how should biden handle it? >> first of all, trump has done him a big favor by lowering expectations, and you always want low expectations going into the debate. and trump has delivered that to biden, and biden will have to challenge to make sure he focuses on tone, not content. this is going to be the american people looking at two men, one is making outrageous nut-ball claims about biden using performance-enhancing drugs, is going to attack him personally, and he will be a bully, ugly and bizarre, and the other one will be like a normal guy who wants to lead our country with unity and integrity. i think this is all about tone, and if biden can stay focused on his tone, i think he'll win the debates decisively. >> lahnee, i know what you would

advise president trump do, down five to ten points nationally, depending on what you believe, but he's not going to follow that advice. how does he prevent this debate from, i think, getting derailed or derailing it? >> look, i'm going to come back to the fact that the president's strong suit in every single poll including the one that nbc news has put out today is the economy. people perceive him as being strong or the economy. i know it's old-fashioned of me to say, but if the president can focus that issue and if he can talk about the economy and what he plans to do, that is really the path way forward for making sure that this is an opportunity for him. very few voters are undecided. we see that. 4% in michigan, 2% in wisconsin, and to the extent that they are undecide, the economy is what will swing them. i think he needs to put the pressure on biden. that will work to his advantage because the president hasn't been in very high-pressure situations in the last couple of months. >> yamiche, the question is can biden stay focused? for instance, this issue with the president and the peaceful transition of power. on one hand, do they want that to be half the debate or do they want to be focused on the affordable care act? >> based on my conversations with people on the biden campaign, the former vice president's going to really want

to be focused on the coronavirus. part of that will be on health care and people's access to it, but a lot of it will be on the president and what they see as the president's failure to protect the country from this pandemic and the failure to see and to acknowledge it, and joe biden's going to be talking about the president admitting to bob woodward that he downplayed the virus, the danger of it in order to, quote, not create a panic. i think president trump will derail this debate in some ways just in the fact that he's going to continue to have personal attacks on joe biden, and the thing that bind donors as well as claire mccaskill and so many others are thinking is can joe biden not lose it when someone starts going after his son. can he make sure not to get too angry and make a gaffe when president trump goes that ugly way and starts to really get at

him. >> peter baker, toward the end of your book, you make it clear jim baker at first says he's definitely going to vote for the president and then he doesn't respond to your question. is there anything said at this debate that would flip jim baker away from trump? >> yeah, great question. jim baker does not make much of donald trump. his whole career was about a series of purposes, integrity, decency and dignity yet he cannot break himself. he doesn't endorse trump, and has yet to vote against him. and they're trying to accommodate themselves to the person who's basically affected a hostile takeover of the party. >> get peter and susan's book. thank you all. you guys were a terrific panel, and it was great to be back in studio. before we say good-bye, a quick programming note, we debuted meet the press reports and on demand and peacock for 30 minutes and we'll do a deep dive into a single topic, and this week we explored how to win a presidential debate, with those that have been involved in presidential debate prep for four decades. watch this right now on peacock along with full episodes of "meet the press." we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press."

trump is about to replace a liberal icon with an extremely conservative justice who's been called the female antonin scalia, and she could serve for a long time. amy coney barrett is oechbl 48. i know i make 43 look like 76, but trust me, that is young for a spreec a supreme court justice. senate republicans are all set for newly named supreme court nominee amy coney barrett. the question is what will democrats do to try to slow down the process. plus t "new york times" bombshell on the president's massive money