that gave oxygen to ross perot. it was a frustrating thing. if ross perot had not run i do think george h.w. bush would have won reelection. i'm not sure the united states would be as unified as we think it would be. i think it's the divisiveness were actually sewn and kind of upset the apple cart. i do not think catchment there very few people at george h.w. bush did not really call friends. and ross perot would be one. he did not remember most people were his enemies, or his enemies. i'll tell you one story i remember right after the top vote we just barely won in the senate and the president invited senators to come down and watch a movie at the white house. people are in line, coming into the white house the president is greeting everyone as they commit to see the movie. he just really against on the bill for the senate pretty looks and says really? think of the people who voted for the bill because he was against it. [laughter] if george h.w. bush observed another term i think that further our institutions of democracy. which i really thi

>> ross perot, the seeds of ross perot came from newt gingrich, if you will. the opportunities there. it was frustrating. remember the challenges in new hampshire where the president was challenged within his own party which gave, oxygen to ross perot. that was a frustrating thing. i think if ross perot had not run, i do think that george h. w. bush would have won reelection. i'm not sure if the united states would be as unified as we think it would be it would not be what it is today would not have been divisive as it is today today would be a lot less trouble i think the challenge of the seeds of our democracy, they were actually sown when ross perot ran from the right and ran at the populist. kind of upset the apple car. i don't think -- they were very few people that george h. w. bush didn't really call friends. ross perot would be one. he was remarkable, he didn't remember most people that were his enemies were his enemies. oh no, no, no, he was pretty good. one story, i remember after a tough vote, we had just barely won in the senate the president invit

one figure you treat seriously is also ross perot.onship because he was not an ideological conservative so both as key figures and i will be the last paragraph because it tells us where this ends up. >> richard figure he then you write figure is looking at wallace and saying how do we get that wallace vote? we need to lead into the politics of resentment and race and that's how we will win the vote and those voters from 68 represented a big part is a big threat or an opportunity. so because so much of the politics of 1993 and 94 democrats and republicans are thinking had to get the ross perot voters? they are all over the place. what are they actually attracted to? 20 percent of the vote in 1992 and ithe was a political bomb going off int the middle of the t two-party system you wouldn't think hyper partisanship would go out of that but then you see somebody likeer newt gingrich who develops the contract with america not to appeal to the right but to the ross perot voters. they were trying. also very quickly going to the wallace quest

one thing you treat seriously is ross perot. it is an odd relationship of ross perot to this movement because he was not an ideological conservative. of wallace and perrault as key figures in this book is worth closing on and i will read the last paragraph because it tells us where this all ends up. >> guest: wallace is a figure in the book, this new right figure is looking at wallace and saying how do we get that wallace vote, we want that wallace vote as want to lean into the politics of resentment, lenient issues of culture and issues of race and that is how we are going to win the wallace vote and wallace voters who in 1968 represented a pretty big threat to the republican party's future or a big opportunity. ross perot is the same in a different way, because so much of the politics of 1993-94 are democrats and republicans being like how did we get perrault voters? he is all over the place. how do we attract his voters, what are they attracted to? 20% of the vote in 1992, he was a political bomb going off in the middle of th

ross perot is all over the place.ow do were attract his voters d what isy it that they are actually attracted to because 20% of the vote in 1992, he was a political bomb going off in thee middle of the two-party system and you wouldn't think that hyper- partisanship would grow out of that but you see something like somebody like newt gingrich who develops the contract with america not to appeal to the right to appeal to perot voters and that is what the document was about. it doesn't mention republicans or democrats. it's trying to attract those voters. the other part i think attaches to the wallace question is in 1990 and 1991 is he becoming a more known figure it's now pat buchanan who is looking over and saying why are ronald reagan and george w. bush denouncing the sky? we need to be figuring out why he's so appealing. part of the campaign in 1992 is about the duke vote just as previous candidates had the wallace vote. >> the book does not focus on donald trump, however, he makes an appearance at the end and it's

it's where ross perot launches his campaign in 1992. that interactivity is so important and so many of the experiments in cable news in the 1990s were about trying to take a sense of talk radio and put on television. you have network that's a precursor to msnbc called america is talking. something called national empowerment television which is a precursor to fox news in many ways. >> this is headshaking. >> you have these real experiments in cable, in talk radio and it is against this diversifying what's available on television but it is also creating this new conservative punditry that as e.g. indicator earlier was not necessarily just happening on something like rush limbaugh show or fox news. it was much more intensively happening, pat buchanan comes up on crossfire, the mclaughlin group as you mentioned ann coulter and tucker carlson and laura ingraham i'll get their start on msnbc. and on entertainment shows like politically incorrect which debuts in 1993. spent a few years on comedy central, defined set channel in the years befor

one figure you treat very serious thing interesting way is also ross perot. it is an odd relationship of perot to this movement. he was not an ideological conservative. a if a wallace and perrault's key figures in this book is worthag closing on. i'm going to read the last paragraph. it really tells us where this all ends up. xo wallace is a figure in the book because richard the new right figure is looking at wallace and saying how do we get that wallace vote? we want that wallace vote we know we need to lean into the politics of resentment to me too lean into issues of culture and race. that's how were going to winin e wallace vote and the wallacea voters who 1968 represented a pretty big threat to the republican party's potential future or a really big opportunity. the same in a different way because so much of the politics of 1993 and 1994 both democrats and republicans being like how do we get perrault voters? perrault is all over the place how do we attack his voters what are they actuallyy attracted to? even 20% of the vote in 1992 he was a political bo

one figure you treat seriously is ross perot, an odd relationship of perot to this movement he was not an otidea logical conservative. they are worth closing on i willll read last paragraph. it tells us where it ends up. >> wallace is a figure in the book, vigery is paying how to we get that wallace vote, we need toce lean into the politics of resentment, and lean into issues of culture and race, that is how we'lloi win the wallace vote and the voters. perot is the same in a different way. because so much of the politics of 1993 and 1994 are both democrats and republicans being like, how do we get perot voters, he isho all over the place, how toe we attract his voters, what are they attracted to. he had 20% of vote in 1992. he was a political bomb going off inng middle of a two-party system. and you wouldn't think that hyper partisanship would grow out of this. you -- somebody like newt gingrich who developed contract with america not to appeal to the right but to appeal perot voters, that is what that document was about. and j quickly, he attaches to wallace question. david duke. in 1

question and that's a good question and one figure you treat seriously in an interesting way, also, a ross perot. and i think it's an odd relationship of perot to this movement because he was not an ideological conservative. so if wallace and perot as key figures in this book i think a worth closing on and i'm going to read the last paragraph because it really tells us where this all ends up. >> so, wallace is a figure in the book because richard vigory, a new rights figure is looking at wallace and how do we get that wallace vote. we want the wallace vote and we need to lean into the politics of resentment and lean into issues of culture and race and that's why we're going to win the wallace vote and voters who in 1968 represented a pretty big threat to the republican party's potential future or a really big opportunity. perot's the same in a different way because so much of the politics of 1993 and 1994 are both democrats and republicans being like, how do we get perot voters with perot all over the place. how do we attract his voters? what are they attracted to? he won 20% of the vote in 1992

it's something you treat seriously in an interesting way also is ross perot and it's an odd relationshipmovement because he was not an ideological conservative so if wallace and perot as key figures in this book is worth closing on and i want to read the last paragraph because it tells us where this all ends up . >> so wallace is a figure in the book because this new right figure is looking at wallace and saying how do we get that wallace vote. we want that wallace vote, we know we need to lean into the politics of resentment, lean into issues of culture and race and that's how were going to win that wallace vote and those wallace voters who in 1968 represented a pretty big threat to the republican party's potential future or really get big opportunity. does the same in a different way. because so much of the politics of 1993 and 1994 are both democrats and republicans being like how do we get that payroll voter, that voters all over the place, what is it there actually attracted to because e remember q1 20 percent of the vote in 1992. he was a political bomb going off in the middle of t

what figure you treat very seriously and an interesting way is also ross perot.his an odd relationship of pull-ups this movement. he was not an ideologicalon conservative. wallace and perrault as key figures in this book is worth closing on i'm going to read the last paragraph. that tells us where we all ends up at. >> wallace is a figure in the book because richard this new is looking at wallace, how do we get that wallace vote? we want that wallace about issuesll of culture and race that's ever going to win the wallace votes in those wallace voters in 1968 represent a pretty big threat to the republican party's or the opportunity. perrault is the same in a different way. because politics in 1993 in 1990 for both democrats and republicans being like how do we get perrault voters? he is all over the place. how do we attract is voters? what are they actually attracted to? 20% of the vote in 1992 he was a political bomb going off in the middle of the two-party system. do not think hyper partisan would grow out of that. but you see something like newt gingrich who d

abortrt the callings he disagreed with, but whole quality could be part of this news cable television ross perot in his campaign was launched in 1992 pretty and that interactivity is so important and so many of the experiments and cable is in the '90s were about trying to take essentially talk radio and put it on television. you have a network for the pure and pre- curses market talking and something called national empowerment television with his precursors "fox news" in many ways. >> in summary was talk about any he was, yes, i thought so. >> and you so you have these really experiments and cable, in talk radio, and again, is diversified whatai is availablen television butut also creating this new conservative country that is indicated earlier, was not necessarily just happening is something like rush limbaugh sure work "fox news", much more things happening in pat buchanan come up on cnn crossfire and another group and you mentioned culture and carlson ingram and though started on msnbc. the entertainment shows like politically incorrect which in 1993, comedy central and in the years before t

also ahead, in the tradition of ross perot and ralph nader, we'll take a look at the crop of third-party candidates running in these midterm elections who could play a major role in swinging the results. >>> but first, willie, you us a preview earlier, but tell us who you have on "sunday today." >> my guest this sunday on nbc is oscar winner eddie redmayne. you know him from "les miserables", "the fantastic piece," and now "the good nurse," a stunning true story that people don't know about, a nurse turned serial killer. he stars with jessica chastain. really smart and thoughtful and a funny guy, great conversation. the academy award winning eddie redmayne on "sunday today." president biden has now signed the inflation reduction act into law. ok, so what exactly does it mean for you? out of pocket costs for drugs will be capped. for seniors, insulin will be just $35. families will save $2,400 on health care premiums. energy costs, down an average of $1,800 a year for families. and it's paid for by making the biggest corporations pay what they owe. president biden's bill doesn't fix every

king live where again, you could call any you could be part of this new cable television where ross perot launches his. in 1992 and that interactive city is so important and so many of the experiments in news in the 1990s were about trying to take essentially radio and put it on television. so you have a that's a precursor to msnbc called america's talking. you have something called national empowerment television, which is a precursor fox news in many ways. i see a head shaking as somebody who is probably on it. i think it was. yes i thought so. nice to see you. yeah. so you have these experiments in in cable, in talk radio, and it is again, it's it's diversifying. what's available on television, but it's also creating this new conservative punditry that e.j. indicated was not necessarily just happening on something like rush limbaugh's show or on fox news. it was much more intensively happening. i mean, buchanan comes up on cnn's crossfire and pbs is the mclaughlin, as you mentioned, and colter and tucker carlson and laura ingram all get their start on msnbc and on entertainment shows l

he goes it downward he got attacked by pat buchanan from the right and then ross perot and a third party. bush did not become a two termer. he doesn't rise as much. when you are getting to the first polling moment is whether you get reelected or not. you do not need our survey. did the american people think you did a good job you get reelected. but was it one term president he's usually ranked, he is ranked very high. but you have a great advantage if you can put together two terms the ways that eisenhower did or reagan did. in the cases of kennedy some of our categories working kennedy's favorite when you're working in a media he was phenomenal. he invented the modern press conference. persuasion is stunning. he could have a approval rating of nasa's moon shot, kennedy talked about crisis management not just croup cuba but berlin crisis and its institutional are the peace corps. he created the seals but he created the green beret. he did the nuclear touch ban treaty before jack kennedy, we are blowing up atomic bombs in nevada and people were getting sent to downwind. when this unfortun

economy started to be very woeful in 1992 and he got attacked by pat buchanan from the right and then ross perot from a third-party and bush didn't become a two term or. he doesn't rise as what. you're getting first polling moment. when you're reelected or not. if the american people thought he did a good job, he would get reelected. -- he is ranked very high, but you get a great advantage if you put together two terms like the way howard did or obama dead. in the case of kennedy he wasn't eclipsed presidents but some of our categories were not in kennedy's favor when dealing with certain regulations he was phenomenal. he invented the modern press conference. when you look at things like public persuasion, stunning. you could have 70% approval rating, bipartisan support for the nasa moon shot. we talk about crisis management, not just cuba, berlin crisis. his institutional legacy. he created the seals, the green beret, he did the nuclear test ban treaty before jack kennedy we were blowing up atomic bonds in nevada and people were getting sick from downwind. we start building up even though kenne