>> the first debate is in the books, so how did it impact the race here in the delaware valley? let's get the inside story. good morning. welcome to "inside story." i'm tamala edwards. let's introduce you to the panel. we'll start with nonprofit exec george burrell. >> morning, tamala. >> radio talk-show host dom giordano. >> morning. >> pollster terry madonna. >> morning. >> and law professor jan ting. >> hey, tam. >> thank you, gentlemen, for all being here. the first debate in the books. we're starting to get some of the numbers in. terry, i'm gonna start with you. it still may be a day or two before we start to get more national polling. we're starting to get a sense of some states. by and large, everybody seems to think she won the debate, and some state polling across the board is showing her up 1, 2, 3, 5 percentage points. does that sound about right to you? >> yeah, i would think so. about 4 or 5 points. seems to be. you're right. we need to get through another cycle of the polls, look at the average of the polls.

i always talk about that. any one poll can have its problems, even the good polls. i'd say 4 or 5 points, but remember what this election's about. both campaigns have targeted four states -- pennsylvania, ohio, north carolina, and... florida. >> mm-hmm. >> 82 electoral votes in four states out of the 270. and we'll have a poll next week, and we'll take a look at it. i would think 4% or 5% bounce, but -- last point about this -- historically, the bounce goes away. maybe, arguably, two elections were decided by a bounce from a successful debate. >> well, it's interesting you say that. public policy polling, which i know you've got some issues with, they have her up 5 percentage points in pennsylvania, yet that was the same as the last two polls. and when i read that from them, it just seems as though, if that's what you're telling me, it didn't really do anything for her here. >> now, remember, before the debate, there were two polls -- one done by muhlenberg college and another one by cnn -- that had the election

at 2% and 1%, respectively, in clinton's favor. at one point, about six weeks ago -- and i'm glad we're all seated -- she had a 9.2 percentage point lead in the average of the polls. >> mm-hmm. >> 9.2%! >> hmm. >> it's now, in our state, down to, depending which polls you want to use, 3%, 4%. it really tightened. >> still tightening up. and what's interesting, you raise ohio. if you look at the schedule, she hasn't been in ohio a lot. it's almost as if she's conceding. that's not gonna happen. everybody seems to be coming here. this week, we saw michelle obama here, we saw joe biden here right after the debate. >> right. >> mike pence is up in york. trump will be lancaster county this weekend. it feels as though our state, am i right, is really where a lot of the rubber is gonna hit the road. >> thank god. finally. that's all that i ever look at. >> he loves it. >> yeah. but to terry's point, what i think this debate did, though, was it stopped donald trump's momentum. so i'm not sure how much mrs. clinton will be ahead, but he was closing in every one of these states.

it's clear to me now. momentum has stopped and moved forward for her, and all those other issues, we've kind of forgotten about until the next debate. >> and what's important -- secretary clinton can get there without ohio and florida. she can't get there without pennsylvania, nor can trump get there without pennsylvania. and so that's why it's such a focus, and it's very interesting, you know, the republican approach to this now. you know, governor kasich said that donald trump would not win ohio, and now that donald trump is gaining traction in ohio, governor kasich has, for some reason, gone silent, and i think that's the republicans saying to him, "if you want a future in this party..." >> you be quiet. >> "...you better be quiet." because this is about power for republicans. because many of them don't think they'll be able to work with a president trump. >> you know, when we came out of the debate, i thought we might be talking a little bit about taxes, whether or not he paid them, we might be talking about some other issues. instead, this morning, we're talking about miss universe. >> right. >> it was a line that clinton got off against trump and some of the things that he said about miss universe.

it has lingered for days. this morning, he got up at 3:00 in the morning and was tweeting out that she's disgusting and referencing a sex tape. it's gone nuts. and if i'm mike pence and i've got a debate next week, i am saying, "thank you for nothing. i'm trying to get us back, focused." >> right. >> you know, in this state, we're also thinking a lot about suburban women. is this hurting him with those women -- all this talk about miss universe? >> i think it is because democrats have been very, very clever in this. they had this woman ready to go. the beauty queen. then they had pieces in cosmo and other places, profiles the day after all this happened. that doesn't happen by happenstance. and they've conflated this away from just her into females and weight, and i defer to my wife. and all the guys at the table -- same thing on this. this is narrate you just don't touch. >> "honey, you look great in that dress." >> the hillary campaign has played it brilliantly. i mean, hillary's remarks 20 years ago attacking the victims of her husband... well, that doesn't matter. that's irrelevant. that was 20 years ago. but they've managed to make trump's remarks from 20 years

ago immediately relevant in this campaign. i will say, on the polling, what happens as the election gets closer is more and more people paying sharper attention, and that's one of the factors that moves the polls. people have to decide who they're gonna vote for. there's a cliché in politics that all politics is local. i'd take it further and say all politics is personal. and when people feel the country's moving in the right direction, they're gonna gravitate towards the person that represents that direction. that's clearly hillary. if people think that the country is a mess and is falling apart and there are jobs going offshore and wages are stagnant and they have to compete with immigrants, legal and illegal for jobs, there's no educational opportunities for their kids, there's rising healthcare costs in the country, they're gonna gravitate towards the change candidate. and as george says, donald trump is the change candidate in this election. so those are the forces that i see moving us. >> but if he's saying things,

personally, that women don't like, will they ignore that? >> i didn't say donald trump was the change candidate. [ laughter ] >> we have the video tape, george. >> the question becomes -- all of that may make sense, but if he's saying things that are hitting women personally, are they ignoring all that other stuff and just saying, "i don't like the way he makes me feel or makes my daughter feel"? >> i think they're conflicted right now, and they're going back and forth, and i think a lot of these women in the collared counties, i think, could determine pennsylvania and the presidency, and they're conflicted right up until the last day. they're not excited by mrs. clinton, but stuff like this gets them back into "maybe i won't vote." >> yeah, there's another aspect of this, if we're talking about pennsylvania. look, the four suburban counties contributed 1.2 million of the 5.67 million votes. let's throw philadelphia in there. now we're talking about five counties. obama, 588,000, walks out of philly. that is 1/3 of the vote of the state. let's go west. allegheny county, pittsburgh. over 40% of the vote.

six counties. the president won only 13 counties. the suburban women are very, very important. the college-educated voters, the highest percentage of them live in the four counties outside of the city of philadelphia. right now, suburban college-educated voters are going for hillary clinton. you know who won college-educated voters four years ago? mitt romney. >> interesting. so we can expect -- it's great for the station. we'll be making a lot of money as they keep coming here. >> yeah. >> ground zero. >> ground zero. let's turn a little bit and talk about chris christie, who's a very strong trump supporter. a former aide, david wildstein -- it has been bombshell testimony claiming -- naming names, saying all of these people heard and knew that we had done this and participated, and he claims that actually at a 9/11 ceremony, he, bill baroni, and the governor had a conversation saying christie absolutely knew. christie says this isn't true. my question is --

does this have any legs? can the governor continue to say nothing here unless a second person joins in with wildstein, or does this level of detail take this to a different level? >> well, i think it's interesting, and i've tried to think about this as to how governor christie, the prosecutor, with a witness like wildstein would respond to this initiative. he would be all-in. and i think he understands that this thing is going to continue to grow and evolve whether anybody else adds on or not. it's gonna stay in the news. it's attached itself to him, as the political bully he is. it's the kind of thing people would believe that he would be engaged in, so i think it's certainly a problem for him and it's gonna be a problem for him to be in a trump administration if trump were somehow unfortunately to be president. >> but he survived three years. >> right. >> you mean attorney general christie? >> attorney general is something -- boy, i'd like to see those hearings in bridgegate. i think he knew. he had to know because this is a guy detail-oriented. the whole atmosphere of the

office is that, and it wasn't one day or an hour. it was four days. i mean, it's shocking to me that people still want to believe that he didn't know. >> let's turn and talk a little bit about something else coming out in the polling. you cannot turn on the television for five minutes without seeing an ad for mcginty or toomey. you probably will see one back-to-back, and yet, terry, they are neck and neck still. >> one of the ways to think about this is you notice that when mcginty rose in the polls, so did hillary. >> mm-hmm. >> when mcginty went down in the polls, guess who was rising? trump, in our state. >> right. >> here's the problem for both of them. we've seen a dramatic decline in ticket-splitting. only one of two of us split our tickets -- one of two -- in 1984. you know what it was four years ago? only one in five. now, we're gonna see an uptick in that because we got a lot of people who like toomey -- >> but don't like trump. >> right, who aren't supporting trump, and they'll be urging a lot of ticket-splitting. >> this is one of the three

races i think now that will determine control of the united states senate. one of three. we could actually end up 50-50. >> right. >> we often talk about that. this race is razor-thin. it could be won by either candidate. if trump or clinton win our state by 5, 6, 7 points, i think it's gonna be tough. >> we're actually seeing more ads from toomey-mcginty than we are from trump-clinton. >> we really are. >> in part because trump is holding back, you know? he's spending a lot of his own money, and so he's being very frugal on his advertising. and that's why we're seeing so much toomey and mcginty. and i think the coattail effect may be working the opposite. usually, you talk about the top of the ticket having coattails. i mean, i think it's possible, not just in pennsylvania, but in other parts of the country -- >> well, toomey was running ahead of trump for a period of time. >> the competitive down-ballot races may actually pull in -- you know, you're gonna vote for somebody anyway. maybe you got a vote in the presidential election, too.

>> i differ a little bit. i think toomey's run an incredibly masterful campaign. >> yeah. >> he's really had to thread the needle. his problem is a lot of the trump people, some of them that call me, they're not big fans of toomey. they may actually show up, vote for trump, and not vote for toomey. you're there. you would think you'd vote. >> because trump's the anti-establishment candidate. >> and toomey's very establishment. >> but neither mcginty or toomey are charismatic candidates, so there's no passion that builds around them, and toomey's been a solid senator, i think, in many people's mind, but nothing exceptional about it. and mcginty's actually run -- she's not a really great candidate, but she's probably run a better general election campaign than she did in the primary. >> let's turn and talk about the president got his first veto override this week on a 9/11 bill. now both houses of congress saying, "people can sue saudi arabia for what happened on 9/11." the president's saying this is a terrible idea. don't you realize saudi arabia's saying it may sell off its assets so they won't be seized here, but more importantly, it could open the u.s. to being

sued overseas for military and intelligence activities. and we've had 20 senators, 30 senators write a note going, "yeah, actually, maybe we should have rethought this." how should we look at this? so many people up in bucks county and shanksville, this means a lot to them to be able to hold someone accountable, but in the bigger picture, is the president right that they should not have gone down this road? >> congress was right, the president was wrong on this one. both veto override votes in the house and senate were overwhelming, and the senate was like 97 to 1. >> 97 to 1. >> right. >> and it was like 350 to 70 in the house. and so, you know, the american people, i think, are on the side of the 9/11 victims. they want them to be able to sue. and i think the president is just over-exaggerating the consequences. saudi arabia can't sell assets that would affect us because it would hurt them more than it would hurt us. there's actually a role in the bill for the executive branch to play and to kind of stay the

proceedings in the courts if the judge is willing to go along with it. so there's still a role for the executive branch. their voice will still be heard. >> but if a wedding gets blown in iraq and they can say an american bomb erroneously targets civilians, does this now open us up for them to say, "we want to sue. we have people here who deserve some remuneration"? >> that's the fundamental problem. there is no question that this was, in many significant parts, a political vote. it's a very difficult vote to cast against the 9/11 victims. >> absolutely. >> no matter what party you're in. but i think the president's issue -- and all of what jan has said is accurate as it relates to saudi arabia -- but the question that the president is raising is -- what risk does this put americans at in foreign countries and being subject to suits by them? >> right. >> and we don't know the answer to that, and many people concluded that they didn't really debate it, by the way. >> i don't think it's just political. this is unfinished business. people believe, and i think rightfully, saudi arabia had a hand in this whole thing, and

we're still back to 9/11. we still wondering how did all this happen? and this helps to give some ability -- bucks county, for example -- >> and we have never gotten a full report about some of the folks who were involved in this. >> even when we get a full report, it's halfway redacted. >> yeah, that's a great point. but they still have not released information on four or five of them -- you might know -- four or five of them, right, jan? we don't still know anything about them. >> right. >> and you can't deprive american victims of justice under the excuse that "oh, down the road, some foreign country may be unjust towards american citizens." well, we have to deal with that when the situation arises. that's a different question. >> you have to figure out what path you're on. when you start dealing with sovereign immunity, that's a big question. you as a lawyer understand that, jan, and that's what we're dealing with here. we're dealing with sovereign immunity. that's a big question. >> i think we're dealing with justice. >> we're dealing with time to take a commercial, unfortunately. >> nice segue. >> so we'll do that and we'll come back to more "inside story." >> "inside story" is presented

by temple university. remarkable change isn't easy, but for those who take charge, it comes naturally. explore temple's impact. visit temple.edu/impact. approve this message.

i'd look her right in that fat ugly face of hers. she's a slob. she ate like a pig.

a person who's flat chested is very hard to be a 10. does she have a good body? no. does she have a fat [expletive]? absolutely. do you treat women with respect? i can't say that either. katie v/she stays late.rd. but she gets paid 21% less than her male coworkers. pat toomey has voted time after time against equal pay for women, against pay that helps hard working families get ahead. katie o/c: for my daughters and yours, i'll fight for equal pay for women. families need it; you've earned it. katie v/o: i'm katie mcginty, and i approve this message because it's your turn to get ahead. >> welcome back to "inside story." we got to talk about the ppa. my, god, it's a soap opera. so, the executive director, vince fenerty, the first thing that comes out is an investigator says, "yes, he did

sexually harass a senior director here." the board says, "he's sorry." we're gonna let him keep his job. he's gonna get some help." then it comes out this week that there was another case 10 years ago, in 2006. the board goes, "okay, we're gonna fire you." he says, "no, i'll resign." they say, "if we had known, we wouldn't have let him keep the job." they say, "the council knew and should've told us. over night, a spokesman says, "actually, they were told about this." and many people saying, "we didn't remember. the case case went to mediation, it didn't stick with us." this is a mess. should anybody beyond fenerty be held accountable because, obviously, there were 10 years of something going on in that department that maybe somebody should've known about and reacted to. >> i think so, and when you look at how bloated it is -- the budget and how many people there and the salaries and all that, and given this this is worse than the dentist, the towing people and everything else -- they're already on fragile ground. but i think they exist in a bubble, there. that's been my experience. >> let me put my partisan hat on and say, "thank goodness the parking authority is controlled by republicans...

>> there we go! gratuitous shot. >> ...and it's a state controlled... >> of course, democrats are never involved in corruption. >> they are in philadelphia. >> but jan -- jan does this end. does this end with fenerty or do we see the wheel turn for others. >> no, everyone understands ppa is a patronage mill, and yes, it's controlled by people in harrisburg, but -- and there are moves underfoot to study the question and try and take it back for philadelphia. but it will be a patronage mill for philadelphia democrats if they get a hold of it. but this should expose what's wrong with the philadelphia parking authority, and the good government people need to get involved. fenerty is walking away with a pension of over $154,000 a year. the biggest pension on record for the philadelphia retirement plans, and i -- >> can i claw it back? can i claw it back? >> and he doesn't even work for wells-fargo. [ laughter ] >> no, but i guess that would be the question -- because of the tone of this,

does he get his pension no matter what or can they make the case, "you left for -- >> jerry sandusky's getting his pension. >> right. i mean, it's amazing to me, yeah. >> well, it's called conviction, and remember, if you're in state pension system, if you're convicted of a crime not related to your job, you don't forfeit your pension. and you have to be convicted. just because you're charged... >> or resigned. >> and all of these plans are under-funded. that's a completely different issue, but it's a big one. >> let's talk about something going on in harrisburg. there's been a fight between the house and the senate in pa over a child sex abuse law. the house wanted a really stringent law. the senate undercut it a bit and said, "yes, we may make some changes going forward, but there won't be retroactive. the house has it back, and they say "no, we want people up to the age of 50 to be able to sue." first of all, which version is gonna make its way out of the state house? >> that's unclear to me. i would tell you the interesting angle to me -- i've had a couple of these state reps on who are good catholics, practicing catholic, and they're under fire

when they go mass. they've actually been called out, and to me, that's completely wrong. so, there's a real passionate -- i don't know the number of catholics that are in the legislature, but it's a big number, and they're under a lot of pressure. >> this also ties in to the state a.g. situation, because the catholic church and the state senate were relying on advice that they got from kathleen kane's a.g. office, that maybe there was a constitutional issue that would affect this retroactivity issue. the new a.g., bruce beemer, says, "you know what? there's no problem here." and the house is relying on that. they're saying full speed ahead on retroactivity. >> but i think this reflects an interesting dynamic in harrisburg between the republicans in the house and the republicans in the senate. you've seen this exchange between them on budget issues. there's a dramatically different view of the world among the republicans in the house and the republicans in the senate. and this issue crystallizes that perfectly. >> i agree with that completely. >> terry, does the fact that it's an election year make a difference? >> well, yeah. i mean, to some extent.

i don't know to what -- how this resonates with a lot of voters, but the bigger problem -- and i'll let the lawyers talk about this -- is once you go back in you're 10, 15, 20 years and you're trying to recreate facts and witness, that gets di-- i mean, everybody ought to sympathizes and want to clear up any -- and help the victims. let's be honest. that's a horrible, horrible crime. but how far can you go back -- >> well, i would answer that, though. there's a difference here. we have statue of limitations, and i agree with it. but with this, there was a widespread conspiracy to stop this. >> i understand. >> it comes back to, again, these people didn't get justice. >> right. oh, no, no. you're absolutely right. i'm merely pointing out that the problems that it creates in a practical sense. not that they -- we all agree they need justice. he's really right. >> quickly, talking about something going on with schools. we have two university administrators. there's a young man at penn who is suing the school. he was accused by a classmate of sexual assault. he says the standard isn't fair, that it's not reasonable doubt the way it would be in any other court. it's preponderance of evidence,

and he's that works against him. it turns out there are cases like this at swarthmore, at st. joe's, at philadelphia university. is this gonna change how these cases get handled or looked at? >> yeah, this is a recurrent issue, as you suggested, at a lot of different schools. and the reality is that the disciplinary system at the school is more focused on the victim, as opposed to the justice system -- the real criminal justice system -- which is focused on preserving the rights of the accused. it seems to me that the end result is going to be more of these cases get put into the criminal justice system and -- >> taken out of the hands of college -- >> yeah, taken out of the hands of these ad hoc disciplinary codes that they don't know what they're doing. if the colleges want to be involved with their students, they can send advisors and lawyers on both sides, for both the accuser and the accused. >> and i think that's right, but i think colleges are driven by protecting the college, more than they are driven by protecting the individuals in

play. >> yeah, but i think more and more, there's a real concern about this among college administrators. i think they get it. they understand the legal consequences for not dealing with this properly. >> all right. time to take another break. we'll come back to our insiders' inside stories of the week. for senate, katie mcginty will stand up to the big oil polluters. she'll work to protect our air and water and make us a leader in clean energy jobs. and millionaire pat toomey? he's for the big oil polluters. toomey voted to protect twenty-four billion dollars in tax breaks for oil companies. and they've given toomey seven hundred thousand dollars in campaign contributions. pat toomey: he's not for us.

senate majority pac is responsible for the content of this advertising. when i was one year old, i was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer on my spinal chord. but i spent my whole life fighting back. so you can imagine what i thought when i saw donald trump say... "i don't know what i said, ah, i don't remember!" "that reporter he is talking about suffers from a chronic condition that impairs movement of his arms." i don't want a president who makes fun of me. i want a president who inspires me, and that's not donald trump. priorities usa action is responsible for the content of this advertising.

>> "inside story" is presented by temple university. remarkable change isn't easy, but for those who take charge, it comes naturally. explore temple's impact. visit temple.edu/impact. >> welcome back to "inside story." time now for our inside stories of the week. george, yours. >> in the upcoming the election, if you're african-american, latino, woman, or bernie supporter, you better take a look at who might get appointed to united states supreme court, that the affordable care act would probably be repealed if donald trump were elected, and bernie sanders will be a voice in a hillary administration. he'll be irrelevant in a trump administration. >> dom. >> my inside story, "the king is dead, long live the king." arnold palmer died. and arnold palmer, i had personal connection. he wanted me to go and play

golf, so i played down at the lakes in south philly, which was the worst golf course imaginable, and i actually wore baseball spikes the first time i played, which is a no-no. but i've never found a sport of things that i've enjoyed playing with other people than golf. >> all right. remembering him. terry. >> all right. a couple keys to the upcoming election -- hillary clinton will win the african-american vote. is it enthusiastic? hillary clinton will win the millennial vote. these are two key voting groups for democrats. the problem is millennials, too many of them aren't gonna vote for her at the moment, and a fair number are voting for the third-party candidates. >> all right, we'll end with you, jan. >> my inside story is what wasn't discussed in the presidential debate, which was immigration, even though it's been a key issue for donald trump's rise and achieving the nomination. i had friends who were playing a drinking game where they would take a drink every time donald trump said "the wall" or "mexico's gonna pay for it." >> they were very thirsty. >> they didn't get to drink. this is an important issue but i

guess lester holt, the moderator, thought, "oh, the fact that it affects jobs and wages and health care and education and everything else in america," that wasn't important to lester. >> listen, lester had a tough job, and i thought he did what he could. all right. that's it for us here on "inside story." we'll see you back here next sunday. >> i'm gray hall, trump trump trump -- donald trump is on the defense but not denying how like that he prayed in taxes. look back at ryan howard's career before what could be his last game as a phil. those stories and more next on

"action news."

>> thank so much for joining us, it is sunday, october 2. nydia han is off, here's some of the stories we're following on "action news" at noon. trump's taxes we'll tell you what's been discovered about his financial losses and it could show he has not been paying federal taxes. a sigh of relief for septa rail rider