wednesday night, msnbc prime starts now with my ayman mohyeldin. msnbc prime starts now with my ayman mohyeldin. in tulsa, oklahoma police there are saying they got a call about an active shooter at the saint francis hospital campus, at about 4:52 p.m. central time at around 4:56 p.m. central time police arrived at the scene, they rushed to the second floor, where they heard gunshots. multiple people at this hour, we understand, have been shot, and we can report that four people have been killed, in addition to those four people, the gunman himself is also reportedly dead. police have not yet identified the suspect, they described him as a black male around the age, ages of 35 to 40 they say he was carrying both a

long gun as well as a handgun, and just before we got on the air, tulsa police held a press conference to update the public on the situation here's a part of it. >> the officers that did arrive were hearing shots i and that's what directed them to the second floor. right now, we have four civilians that are dead, we have one shooter that is dead, and right now, we believe that is self-inflicted. officers have not been interviewed, but we're certain that's a self-inflicted gunshot wound on his part. >> i don't have to remind you that this h incident comes just eight days after the horrific mass shooting in uvalde, texas that killed 19 children as well as two adults and that shooting inel texas, that one came just n days after another mass shooter killed ten people at a grocery store in enbuffalo, new york. a country we can no

longer move on from this topic even if we wanted to. from this we cannot heal. with each week, there comes yet a new horrific event. more lives lost. more communes ripped apart. morere survivors burdened with unshakeable lifelong trauma. and so tonight, we will continue to do whatso we have done on so many nights before. wema will continue to follow th story of yet another mass shootingfo in america. joining us now is karen, who serve as a tulsa county commissioner. thank you very much for joining us on such a difficult night for you and quite frankly for the entire country, that we have to yet again live through this tragedy. what can you tell us about what you're hearing from people on the ground there, in your community, in tulsa? well. >> well, i mean our law enforcement acted very quickly. i think they got control of the

situation as well as they could. and i am not at the scene, but what i can say to you and to those who are watching, we are a state of compassionate people. and we have a lot of hunters. a lot of hunters that would think that having some long gun, a weapon that you don't need to be carrying automatic weapons around, and so this is a crime, we have to as a nation address this issue about gun control. and we've got to do background checks. we can change the age. we've got to deal with the mentalto health crisis that's evident meeverywhere, and you know, let's talk about what weapons should and should not be on our streets, because other countries have done this, new zealand, australia, canada,

japan, look at their numbers, their numbers tell the story and it doesn't look like what we are seeing. my heart is broken. this is a community, as our mayor just said, he talked about how our first responders are, you know, these, this was a doctor's office, and so this individual went in, and these are people who stepped up throughout covid to help keep all of us safe, and to have this happen at saint francis, it's just, you know, it's a it's a healing place, and sh shouldn't be happening here -- and this shouldn't be happening here. it is absolutely heartbreaking. and i knowly people are going t say this isn't the time to talk about this, but there is no better time to talk about this. >> i have not had the privilege of making it yet i to tulsa, i hope to one day, but you certainly know that area better than i do. what has been the conversation among your constituents, among tulsa,it following what has

happened in buffalo, following what has happened in texas, was this something on the forefront of all of yourth minds. i'm sure it was on the law enforcement side of things, but as a county commissioner, what were you hearing, what was the discussion like in your area following what we saw over the weeks?o >> well, i think, you know, everybody, i mean you can't watch and see, you know, young children like this, impacted in their schools, in their schoolteachers, and not i to thk this has to stop. but it is a mixed conversation as it is in manybu places acros this nvcountry, and because we have a lot of people who, you know, they're all about first amendment rights, but at some point, i mean, when they wrote these rules, they were, i mean they had guns that you had to take the powder and push it down in the, you know, this is not an automatic weapon, it's not the weaponsma that we have now, so ise a conversation that we hav

to have, but it is a mixed bag here, as it is in a lot of places, and as i speak, with the county commission, as me as an individual county commissioner, not speaking for the others represented by my county, i want to make that clear. >> now, i certainly appreciate that. thank you so much,ai karen keit tulsa county commissioner. greatly appreciate your time, on yet another tragic night in this country.ht our hearts go out to you and to everyone in that community. thank you. joining us now is cedric alexander, former dekalb county georgia police chief and former member of president obama's task force on 21st century policing. thank you for making time for us. it has not even been a week since the shooting in uvalde, almostth two and a half weeks since the massacre here in buffalo, again, we're talking about yet another mass shooting in this country, this one at a medical facility, saint francis there in tulsa, can i just get your reaction to yet again this

massur shooting? >> well, you know, first of all, it's>> hard to react to any of these eanow, because they're becoming so frequent, that the unfortunate part is, is that we to stay very conscious of the fact that he would not become anesthetized to these shootings and treat them as they're going to go away, there is something very wrong and will that is going on in our environment across this country particularly as it relates tovi people with guns and those who laid down some other stuff that is going on in their head that we don't know about. but these shootings that are occurring now once a week, and we've beenrr seeing that going back to buffalo, is that we're going to continue to see unfortunately situations where we cannot ignore what we're seeing, and we're seeing these shootings, that are happening with this rate of frequency, we have a real issue in this country, you know, in this country, and i think it's time

for oury, lawmakers, particular at the congressional level to really act in terms of coming to some type of agreement as to hoe we're going to approach this whole gun safety issue. and notice i said gun safety. not gun control. gun legislation. but gun safety as an issue because i think uses that terminology puts it in a whole different framework, how do we deal with this, without people believing their guns are going to be taken, but how do we keep these weapons safe is what is really very important right now. >> this is perhaps a difficult question to ask, but when you look at the three most headline making, you know, mass shootings, a supermarket, a hospital, a school, they would consider to be soft targets in this country and obviously the conversation by some has been to harden schools, to harden

perhaps hospitals. are we as a society moving in the direction where we are going to have to start having metal detecters at every restaurant, public, hospital, supermarket, school, that we go to, just to feel safe, since we can't control or prevent these types of shootings? >> well, first of all, we have to remember we live in a democraticto society. people move around freely and at random, you can't harden a target so much, you can't harden a school target so much, a shopping center, or a mall, or a church, walking down fifth avenue, there are targets out en there, and it's the institutions that you're not going to be able to just harden. i think when people make those kinds of statements, they are not thinking very deeply and very intentionally as to really how weve address this issue. we can no longer think that we somehow,we we just harden the target at a school, that somehow, our issues around this

violent use of weapons is going to go away. itns is not. we're going to have to go a lot deeper than that, and think a lot deeper, because what we've been doing in the past is clearly not working, and even as data would suggest, having more police in schools does not changeli the dynamic of these school shootings. we've got to look deeper and harder and come up with some really strong legislation that is going to help us move through this issue, but these ongoing kind of slogans, and innuendos around what they think is going to be best to hard an target. we harden targets but we don't have to go beyond that because we are a free society, people are going to come and go, in and out and we can't hard continue so much. >> let me ask you really quickly, the police just a short while ago were making a point to tell us that there was a three-minutehe response time. given the fact that this country has been consumed with the wi

uvalde, texas, shooting and the police response in that situation, what do you make of this information, this nugget of information that we're learning that the response timeof was the minutes. as a police officer, former police officer, how would you rate that? >> well, if they had a three-minute response time, that is a great response time. but in addition, if you go back and you look at that interview with the deputy chief there in tulsa, here is what they did very carefully, and very cleverly, here's what we know. they did not give you any more information than what they knew at that moment. they did not oversell, we did this, we did that, here's what we weknow. we only know this at this point. that was smart of them to do. and as they learned more, they would share more but they would do it in a manner in which people, they don't have to walk their conversations back, such as what we saw there in uvalde. so kudos to folks in the way in

they're reporting how the officers responded, what did they know at this point, which is very limited. and they made that very clear. and i think they should be applauded for that, and clearly, it was lessons learned from uvalde. >> cedric alexander, greatly appreciate your time, and thank you for joining us this evening. hopefully, you know, i hate to say, but hopefully we won't be talking to you again on another mass shooting in this country, but always appreciate your insights. mentioned we will continue to monitor this story as it develops. we will bring you the very latest throughout the hour as we get. it up next, president biden sets some limits on the kind of aid that the u.s. will send to ukraine as it continues to fight off russia's invasion. live reaction from the ukrainian ambassador to the united states. stay with us. om the ukrainian

ambassador to the united states. stay with us

it's time for our memorial day sale on the sleep number 360 smart bed. why choose proven quality sleep from sleep number? because every green thumb, 5k, and all-day dance party starts the night before.

the sleep number 360 smart bed senses your movements and automatically adjusts to help keep you both comfortable all night and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night. sleep number takes care of the science. all you have to do is sleep. during our memorial day sale,save $1,000 on the sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, queen now only $1,999. only for a limited time. to learn more go to sleepnumber.com

so it has a boring name, but it is a fascinating piece of equipment. it is called an mrl, it is short for multiple rocket launcher, and as you probably guessed, as the name suggests, it is a type of weaponry that will spit out multiple rockets in a single go, and it sounds pretty basic now, but it really did revolutionize warfare when the soviet union first trotted them out during world war ii. the american version came off the line in the 1980s, much, much later than the russians, and it is still an important part of the american military arsenal, till this day, it has two launchers that can hold up to six rockets each, it can all be fired in under a minute, and with just a three-person crew, hitting targets close to 200 miles away makes it a very

effective and efficient weapon and there is a kind of compact version of the mrl as well, because this machine is smaller, it is lighter, it is much easier to move around on a battlefield, and the company that makes it says that it is perfect for what they call shoot and scoot and you can fire, relocate, reload, and fire again, you can do all of this, in just a few minutes. and it is easy to see why this kind of rocket launcher is such a high value weapon on any battlefield. the cabins are armored. so they offer some level of protection for the troops that are inside of them. they have a long range, as i mentioned, so you do not have to engage too close with the enemy, you don't have to get to the front lines, and you can shoot a ton of rockets in a very short period of time. now, all of that put together is why this missile system has been very high on ukraine's munitions wish list. and since the start of the war,

ukraine has been essentially begging the united states to try and send them these advanced weaponry systems, to try and beat back russia's violent march into their country. but there's a reason that the united states did not send them on day one of this war. multiple rocket launchers are substantially more advanced than any of the weaponry ukraine currently has and unlike the stingers and the javelin, the names we have grown accustomed to, the u.s. has already sent those, the rocket launchers, these mrls, they have long ranges, which could give ukraine the ability not only to deter russian aggression inside of ukraine but give the ability to strike inside of russia. now, if ukraine were to use american weaponry, to fire rockets across its border into russia, it would be a series escalation with international ramifications. well, late last night, ukrainian

officials announced that russia has taken control over one of the last large cities in the eastern region, a significant milestone for russia in this war as they continue to expand the boundaries of their control inside of ukraine. u.s. military officials are signaling the next few weeks could bring a decisive phase in this war which is why this could not have come at a better time for ukraine. president biden announcing that the united states will now be sending those advanced rocket systems to ukraine. though perhaps as a compromise between ukraine and russia, they are not sending those big souped up versions that i was describing that can reach hundreds of miles, instead they are sending the, you know, baby rocket launchers, the shoot and scoots that only have the ability to reach a few miles into russia, far away from any major civilian centers. even so, by some analysis, this is a potential game changer for

ukraine, because these small launchers will more than double the current reach of ukraine's weaponry. ukraine has reportedly promised the united states that they would not use these weapons, these new rocket launchers, to strike inside of russia's borders, perhaps russian troops that are making their way into ukraine, they have promised not to do that, though predictably russia says that the united states is quote deliberately pouring oil on the fire by sending ukraine these new rocket launchers. president biden for his part, he has written an op-ed in "the new york times," where he made clear his intentions behind sending those weapons. he writes in part, so long as the united states or our allies are not attacked, we will not be directly engaged in this conflict, even by sending the american troops to fight in ukraine or by attacking russian forces. we are not encouraging or enabling ukraine to strike beyond its borders. we do not want to prolong the

war just to inflict pain on russia. we know how russia feels about this whole thing. we have heard directly from president biden but here is an important question, what does ukraine think in all of this? joining us now is the ukrainian ambassador to the united states, thank you so much for making time for us tonight. i greatly appreciate your time. i'd like to begin by getting your reaction to president biden's announcement that the united states will be sending these advanced rocket systems to ukraine in the coming days. how is your government receiving the news, and more importantly, how do you see these weapons helping ukrainian soldiers four months into this war? >> thank you very much for having me. good evening to everyone. well, first of all, first, we are, this weapon has been much awaited by our defenders and

this new package president biden announced today, not only are we receiving more artillery, more important equipment that we haven't seen, and we have seen in a while, and new capability that we need for this difficult battle in the east and south that we have now. when on the one hand, you know, on the one side, we see russia invaders, with all of the fire power destroying literally, making our cities and villages rubble. and on the other hand, on the other side, not only our defenders there, it is our citizens, it is our peaceful villagers, so we need all of the weapons and the equipment that we can get in order to stop them and another to get them out from our country, and this, what we announced today is exactly what we need for this phase of the battle. >> is it enough? i mean i guess the short question is, is it enough? because "the new york times" is

reporting today that some ukrainian military units are complaining about a lack of ammunition. so my question is, are the weapons the u.s. is sending, is it enough to satisfy the current needs of your military, and if not, do you expect other countries to follow america's lead and step up, you know, for example, germany or other european countries? >> first of all, russia is so much bigger than us. and we are in the fight against a very brutal, autocratic regime, a large country that has no respect of international law, that has no respect to any red line, and they still have, even though they are not, they are fighting for the wrong, an invasion of an army, there is so many more of them. so we need all the support that we can get in this. we are motivated, we are not going to surrender, we will not surrender, and we have shown we're able to win, and we won

already a couple of battles that which came at a very high price and very helpful to the u.s., and providing all of the assistance and weapons and sanctions, especially, and for the support, and this has happened already twice where the u.s. has led a discussion of more than 40 countries of which 20 already are giving us the support in addition to the support that the u.s. is providing. so we of course would like the war to be won by us, and for peace to return, as quick as possible. we don't know how much it will take. and we need all of the support regardless of how much it will take, because it is not just about ukraine, it is a fight for democracy, it is a fight for rule of law, which has been breached, the international rule of law, which has been violated by russia. >> as you can imagine, the kremlin is arguing that this u.s. decision to supply ukraine

with these new more powerful weapons, quote, pours fuel on the fire. what do you say in response to that charge by the kremlin? >> we have heard so many lies by this war criminal, and they do not deserve to have anything else, they have attacked our country eight years ago, they plan to do it for all this time, they have again made a full-pledged war on ukraine, almost 100 days ago. destroying areas, destroying hospitals, destroying residential areas, destroying schools, destroying our museums, kill and rape and torture, men and women and children. and i don't think in this situation it really matters what they think about it. they have to get out. they have to stop their aggression. 124 countries in the u.n. condemned it. the national court, on the 16th of march, rules that they have to stop them, and they have to

get out. so whatever fuel they're talking about, they have to stop the war crimes that they are doing in ukraine and they have to stop the aggression. >> madam ambassador, can i ask you, as i'm sure you are fully aware, secretary of state tony blinken said that the u.s. received assurances from your government that ukraine will not use these new mid range munitions that the u.s. provided to hit targets inside russia. can you confirm that that is the case, you will not hit targets inside of russia with these american-provided weapons? and does that also include crimea which is, you know, ukrainian territory occupied by russia, will you attack russian troops in crimea? >> look, first of all, since the war started, since russia raged war on us, and occupied crimea we always had legal rights to be

taken by military force and we never have done, it we have always chosen the diplomatic solution, and we try to restore our territory integrity and sovereignty through diplomatic means. during the last 100 days, regardless how brutal it has been, ukraine has strictly been doing everything according to international law. we are fighting on our territory, we are defending our territory, we did not plan to attack russia and we still do not plan to attack russia. we need all of the equipment regardless of the range in order to get russia out from our territory and in order to defend our country. and yes, crimea is ukraine. >> united states ambassador to the united states, appreciate your time. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. up next, a stunning new report on the republican plan to challenge the results of future elections in this country. that's straight ahead. stay with us. straight ahead. stay with us

so virginia last year, in particular, in the democratic area of fairfax county, one of the trump voters tried to overturn the 2020 election helped organize groups that trained 4,500 poll watchers and election workers and organized 18 local task forces, and the stated goal was to ferret out supposed fraud in the virginia gubernatorial election, the county registrar at the time

said that the operation ate up tally-workers time with dozens of information requests as well as informal interrogations. everything they saw that they didn't understand was fraud in their mind. it was always accusatory. that county registrar resigned in march in large part because of how difficult these people had made this job. claire mitchell is now holding that up work again in fairfax county, virginia, as the national model for how republicans should handle elections this year, and it seems that the republican national committee has a very similar idea. this year, the multimillion dollar investment includes hiring 18 state election integrity directors and 19 state election integrity lawyers. the party has so far recruited more than 5,000 poll watchers and nearly 12,000 poll workers. so today, "politico" got its hands on audio, and documents from meetings where republican

party operatives involved in this rnc effort outlined their plan. the idea is to use rules designed to provide political balance among poll workers to install party-trained volunteers prepared to challenge voters at democratic-majority polling places. and then to back up those party workers with a quote army of party-friendly lawyers and district attorneys ready to help those groups take their challenges to court. in a power point presented at one of these meetings, by the rnc's mission of election integrity director, the volunteers are instructed how to challenge a voter, particularly a voter citizenship, their age, their residency, and each their registration. and a few days ago, that same rnc election integrity director submitted a list of more than 850 republican poll workers to the detroit clerk. the chair of the rnc disputes all of this, all of this reporting out of "politico"

today, i think that it shows the extreme bias and that "politico" is distorting the facts. but how will this actually impact michigan come november? how could it potentially impact other states where this could be taking place as well. joining us now is jocelyn benson, democratic secretary of state for the great state of michigan, secretary benson, it's great to see you again. thank you so much for making time for thus evening. you have faced an avalanche of voter fraud conspiracy theories in michigan, after and during the 2020 election, what is your reaction to this new reporting that republicans are essentially trying to start earlier this time, training teams of volunteers and poll workers to look for fraud, even before, and during the actual election and voting process. how will that impact your line of work? >> well, thanks for having me, and for covering this really important story. i think to be clear, it's important, and it's not a bad thing in and of itself to be recruiting election workers and

poll workers, we know, a lost organizations do it. what is problematic here is these individuals are being fed misinformation and potentially being prepared to interfere with the elections process themselves, as you know, as the story out of virginia illustrates. from our story, we have meetings with clerks on this issue to essentially protect the integrity of the process from any interference and also recognizing that our expectation that anyone working as an election worker or poll worker in any election regardless of their political affiliation follows the law and they will be removed if they don't. >> what makes this plan feel like an escalation from previous plans? to me, i guess the supposed election integrity groups and the rnc aren't just training poll watchers which you are saying is supposed to be apolitical while they carry out their work, but actual poll workers. what kind of power do poll

workers hold that poll watchers wouldn't? what's the distinction between those two a poll worker and a poll watcher? >> it's an opinion important distinction. poll workers are deployed by the election authorities locally, they are select and appointed and answer to their employers, their local clerks and in that regard, they must follow the procedures, they're responsible for checking in voters, checking their identification, giving them a ballot, making sure essentially that things run smooth limit now we also have in our law and the interest of ensuring transpaens the opportunity for poll challengers to come in and observe and those individuals are often empowered to talk to election workers and potentially challenge the eligibility of citizens to vote. and so that is also where our concerns are. we know with the clerks, they are getting a significant uptick of cases, in and of itself, not a bad thing to see people applying to be poll workers, but

when there's a nefarious intent involved, we have concerns, and when and if individuals with a nefarious intent are not hired to be election workers or are removed from any sorts of violations of the law, it is possible that others who are poll challengers could be there and potentially interfere with the process as well. we have eyes on all of this. and from our standpoint, in michigan, our procedure will be just as it was in 2020, to have a plan for rapid response, if and when there is any interference, and any escalation of intimidation or threats against voters or poll workers on election day or before, and so our plan is similarly to increase and escalate our work to be prepared for anything to happen on election day, and rapidly respond and address it as effective as possible to ensure that no eligible voter, no matter where they live or who they vote for, is blocked from voting. >> can i ask you, can i zero in on this for a moment, the ability to challenge a voter, for example, i mean from "politico's" reportings of the

meeting's that the rnc michigan election integrity director, it sounds like the plan is to basically challenge ballots by literally standing up and saying i would like to challenge this voter, and as you're saying that is part of the process, but are you concerned that they could just overwhelm the entire process, that by overwhelming it, they clog it up, they delay it, they undermine the veracity of the vote, they make people lose confidence in the process? >> yes, absolutely. and clearly, that's part of the goal, as it was in 2020, to create chaos and confusion, through even just the threat of interference, that causes people to be reticent to vote, or perhaps not show up to vote at all, for fear that something might happen if they do. now under our law, there are specific ways in which and reasons in which someone can be challenged, and so keeping an eye on again the abuse of that very important transparency mechanism is something we will be doing throughout election

day. it is also important to recognize that michigan, voters have the right to vote absentee, prior to election day and return their ballot by mail or drop box, local post office and we see more and more voters doing that in 2020, and in subsequent elections, so one option for voters to think about is there any way, if they're anyway concerned about things that could happen at the polls is to vote prior to election day absentee. that said, we will be ready on election day as well to have eyes and ears on the ground to potentially look into any abuse or intimidation of voters swiftly in partnership with law enforcement and others to ensure that it doesn't interfere with our elections process. >> jocelyn benson, democratic secretary of state for the state of michigan, thank you as always, a great pleasure. thank you for your time. still ahead today, we got a preview of the arguments that some prominent democrats will be making as voters head to the ballot box, by the looks of it they're not mincing their words. is this a sign of what to expect

as we head into the midterm elections? stay with us. elections? stay with us

you don't know who's got what in their purse. lipstick. an iphone. and maybe a little smith and wesson .38. >> i'm going to washington to stop the pelosi agenda and i'm not going to stop. >> sometimes we, silencers get a

bad rap. >> did he mention he has a gun range. >> in 2022 i am going to blow away the democratic socialist agenda. >> all right, so that is how republicans were running for office in the lead-up to the uvalde massacre. filling their ads with as many guns and gunshots as possible. according to "the new york times" guns have been featured in over 100 republican ads this cycle, over 100 ads just like that, and the election is still five months away. and today we got some of the first general election ards from democrats in this upcoming cycle and they appear to have republican pay a political price on guns and abortion. take a look at the ad for georgia governor candidate

stacey abrams. >> for years kemp has put us backwards and backwards on guns, says law enforcement and made it easier for criminals to carry guns in public and vowing to make abortion a crime with ten years in prison. just when we need to move forward, brian kemp keeps taking us back. >> it is rare to see democrats in swing states actively putting guns and abortion at the center of their campaigns. but this, as you very well know, is not going to be a typical election cycle. today, we got another bold ad from democratic kentucky senate candidate charles booker and i must warn you that there is some disturbing imagery in this ad and the ad opens with a trigger warning, not because anybody in the ad is going to start pulling the trigger. watch this. >> the pain of our past persists to this day.

in kentucky, like many states throughout the south, lynching was a tool, it was used to kill hopes for freedom, it was used to kill my ancestors. now, in an historic victory for our commonwealth, i have become the first black kentuckyian to receive the democratic nomination for opponent, the opponent, compares it to health care sand slavery and the person who single handedly blocked an anti-lynching act from becoming federal law. it could not be clearer. do we move forward together or do we have politicians like rand paul forever drive us back and drive us apart? in november, we will choose. we will choose kentucky.

>> very powerful ad. there and we should note that while senator rand paul did in fact block that anti-lynching bill last year, he did go on to support a narrower version of the bill this year. here to tell us what all of this means is democratic pollster and msnbc contributor cornell bencher. mr. belcher, great to have you on and let me ask you about the stacey abrams ad i just played, is it smart for democrats to center issues like gun control and abortion rights in a swing state like georgia front and center of their campaign? >> it absolutely. is democrats have to change the fundamental dynamic of midterm, and they're not going to do that unless they, unless they get jarring and law involved. and have to say watching those republican ads, those ads when you watch those republican ads, and you think about what the

typical, you know, woman voter is, and a mom with kids, you know, it's kind of jarring, and it's disconnecting, and you watch those ads and you think, oh, well, let's mix the politics of big lies, grievance, division, and replacement theory, with white nationalism and a culture that glorifies and normalizes weapons of death. what could possibly go wrong in this country. right? i mean it is, it is very jarring. and so i think democrats do have to make them pay for being so far outside the mainstream on these issues. >> let's talk about kentucky for a moment. that ad that we saw there from charles booker, very powerful ad. even if you don't live in kentucky, i mean i was just moved by the image ry and hearing that narration, who is kentucky senate candidate charles booker trying to appeal to in that ad, about lynching? is it different than let's say

different candidates in the past, who tried to go up against mitch mcconnell? >> well, i decouple the two, the abrams ad i think is putting front and center the issues of gun reform and women's rights, and n-a way that puts, that puts republicans on the defensive. i understand that the kentucky ad, and kentucky, understand, kentucky is very different than georgia, georgia is not a brown state, kentucky, no one is calling kentucky a 50/50 toss-up. the voter campaign, look, i think it is a really smart because they have to get attention and they have to raise money. watching that ad, i am going to go to their ad, to their online website and maybe donate money so i think it is smart from that point and they have to jar and throw the lang ball in a way stacy does not. >> will the fact that republicans have been jockeying, and you saw it in those ads that we played there, jock yig

throughout the primaries to try and see seem more pro gun than their opponents, could that come back and hurt them in november, given the trauma that the country is going through right now, after all of these mass shootings? >> that is a million dollar question. and it becomes a question of whether or not democrats will make them pay a price for it. i think stacey abrams campaigned, she has opened it up and said absolutely we will take this fight to them and make them pay the price for it. look, a lot of these congressional races and certainly the senate races are going to hinge on what suburban women do. and when you think about moms, those suburban moms who are literally praying and hoping that no one shows up at their school, at their kid's school, with an automatic weapon today, you got to think, they are misaligned and quite frankly, immoral to those moms who are going to decide this election. >> and let me ask you finally, because poll after poll shows that voters' number one issue is

still the economy, and i'm curious to get your thoughts, because i'm one of these people who feels that this midterm, and the 2024 presidential race, those are existential races for the future of our democracy, i mean it is the future of our democracy that is at stake here. and should democrats be going out there, with the unified message about the economy, trying to, you know, change the narrative, about the inflation that republicans are ginning up or should they be talking about we could have a democratic party that never has another democratic election after the midterms based on what we're hearing today, trying to rig the election and suppress voting rights and all of the other things that are a threat to our democracy. >> look, i'm say it like this. if the election is about a referendum on joe biden and the key issue is inflation, which what voters are frustrated with, democrats are going to get their tails kicked, economic policy,

he or she who defines the debate wins the debate and if it is about a women's right to their body and the ability to have common sense gun reforms that help keep our kids safe and help keep our strooed streets from being a war zone, i think democrats have a chance to change history and i think they have to take that chance. look at george bush. he changed the dynamic of his race, going into his midterm, and look, the economy was tanking at that time, we forget the economy was tanking at that time, and instead of talking just about the economy, you know what george bush talked about? he talked about national security. and he talked about an issue where they had the advantage. and he defined the debate, going into that midterm, and they changed history. >> it is one of the critiques people have of democrats, they're just not waking up to the seriousness of the moment and taking this threat to our country on so many levels, the health of our community, the

lives of our women, the lives of our democracy more seriously. cornell belcher, thank you very much. msnbc contributor. great to see you. we'll be right back. y much msnbc contributor. great to see you we'll be right back. new healthier habits, too. what changes are you making for your type 2 diabetes? maybe it's time to try trulicity. it's proven to help lower a1c. it can help you lose up to 10 pounds. and it's only taken once a week, so it into your busy life. trulicity is for type 2 diabetes. it isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. it's not approved for use in children. don't take trulicity if you're allergic to it, you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have an allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, changes in vision, or diabetic retinopathy. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with sulfonylurea or insulin raises low blood sugar risk. side effects include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which can lead to dehydration, and may worsen kidney problems.

the choices you make can help control your a1c. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity.

this is xfinity rewards. our way of saying thanks, with rewards for the whole family! from epic trips... to jurassic-themed at-home activities. join over 3 million members and start enjoying rewards like these, and so much more in the xfinity app! and don't miss jurassic world:dominion in theaters june 10th.

that does it for me tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. another community is grieving this morning, after a deadly mass shooting. this time, a gunman targeted a hospital in tulsa. killing four people and wounding several others. we'll have the latest from oklahoma. meanwhile, in neighboring texas, the uvalde school police chief says he's not dodging investigators. this comes after a state agency says he ignored them for days. more on the chief's comments straight ahead. and there is some on capitol hill, to get something done in response to that massacre at robb elementary schl