thank you for coming back. steven: thank you. susan: it is a timely week. this week on tuesday is the special election to fill jeff sessions' seat in alabama and we will talk about that and also about the seeming feud between the president of the united states and the senate majority leader. a lot on our agenda. let me introduce the two reporters who will be asking questions. erica warner is the chief congressional reporter for the "associated press." thank you for coming back this week. erica: my pleasure. al weaver joins us for the first time. he is a political reporter for the "washington examiner." erica, why don't you start? erica: steve, i think we have to kick off with talking about the trump-mcconnell feud. what did you think about seeing the president late into your former boss when you were chief of staff? does it do anything to forward republican goals and any thoughts how it will play into the 2018 midterms? steven: i feel like the kid who is listening to his kids arguing upstairs and just wishing everyone could get along. the "wall street journal" editorial nailed it by focusing on what is really at stake. the journal sympathizes with the president's anger and frustration over the failure or of publicans to pass obamacare. if you watch the final vote happen in the senate where the repeal effort failed, no one was more angry and frustrated then senator mcconnell, who spent a huge amount of time pushing his caucus hard, twisting arms, and holding votes. mcconnell is very subtle in his anger and he does not show it, but he was obviously upset and irritated about it. pulling the lens back, what really matters is what is at stake. what is at stake is that in order for us to have success in the 2018 midterms, we have to move serious legislative agenda. that will take cooperation between the white house and congressional allies in a somewhat uneasy relationship. the democrats have declared the president's agenda, every part of it, a d.o.a. it will be really necessary for republicans on the hill and the president to cooperate in order to move the ball on these legislative issues. erica: therefore, what do you think the president was hoping to accomplish in his attacks on mcconnell? steven: hard to know. it is always hard for me to discern what the strategic importance of it is. obviously, he is frustrated by the lack of progress, but i think everybody shares that frustration. it is difficult especially when you have democrats down the line not willing to lend a single vote to what the president wants to do. you may remember that when the president came to town, he believed he was able to get democratic cooperation and even envisioned working deals with senator chuck schumer. i think he was surprised, and naturally so, that there would be no cooperation from that angle. again, it will come down to the president and the white house working constructively with the people on the hill who will have to carry that ball uphill, and one of the chief people who will be important in that is obviously leader mcconnell, who has already delivered what is arguably the signature achievement of this administration, which is putting neil gorsuch in the supreme court. al: looking to 2018, though, how much of a problem is this for the party right now? for example, what happens if the members in the senate who are up for reelection are forced to choose between mcconnell and president trump? is that an issue you guys are worried about? what is your take on that? steven: it comes down to everybody understanding what is at stake. if we have serious divisions in the party with respect to the 2018 midterms, that will complicate our ability to grow the senate majority, complicate our ability to hold the house majority. losing either house would be disastrous for the president's agenda and disastrous for his reelection. it will be very important for people to get on the same page. obviously, there will be disagreements in terms of tactics and over policy. that always happens with any administration. it will be important to try to settle those differences in as constructive as a way as possible. ultimately -- the ultimate objective for both the white house and republicans in congress is essentially the same, to pass a legislative agenda. to get progress on issues we believe help the country, and that puts us in a better position with respect to the 2018 mid-terms and beyond. al: as you are looking ahead to that, how many seats to expect to pick up at this point, and if you do, how many? steven: it is always hard to tell. the democrats learned in the 2016 cycle that the math can look good and the odds can look great, but it is always harder than it looks, especially when you want to take on incumbents. we are in the same position. we have 10 democrats in the senate running in states that president trump won and five of those states he won by large , double-digit margins. so that looks good and that ought to be good. in those states, donald trump is far more popular than he is if you look more globally across the rest of the country. president trump could have a huge impact on the outcome of those senate races. that said, we have two republican incumbents of our own to defend. we need to make sure they come home if we have the opportunity to increase our majority. then you have a number of democrat incumbents running that are smart politicians. they are playing the game well and it will not be easy to dislodge them. we'll have to run first-rate candidates and campaigns to win those races. erica: do you have a reason to believe the president shares senator mcconnell's goals as far as protecting and growing the senate majority because he sent mixed signals on that? for example, appointing montana congressman ryan zinke to head the interior department, thereby taking him out of contention as a senate candidate. on the other hand, earlier this week, he did endorse luther strange in the upcoming alabama special election, who is mcconnell's preferred candidate. what are your thoughts on that? steven: i would think if anything, the vote that we had on obamacare where we really came up essentially one vote short would convince anybody that we need to grow the majority in order to have some success at moving an agenda. i do think that the president's endorsement of senator strange was shrewd from a number of different perspectives, but among them was to try to settle an issue that could end up being a much more complicated headache down the road, both into the runoff as well as into a potential general election in alabama. it also showed that the president is willing to engage in senate races and spend some of his political capital to achieve outcomes he wants. that suggests that he will take seriously his power and potential to impact the 2018 senate elections in a way that advances his interests going forward. al: you guys are obviously making big plans in the alabama race and heading mo brooks on not being pro-trump enough. if you look and you mentioned dean heller and jeff flake as the more vulnerable incumbents. they are not very pro-trump. they voted with the agenda, but they are not necessary the rhetoric. is that sustainable going after candidates that aren't pro-trump enough, but also trying to protect members that are not? steven: obviously every state is different. but we are learning a lot from our engagement in alabama which will be helpful to us as we head into the 2018 cycle. what we are certainly learning in states in alabama where donald trump trump's approval rating is up above 85% for republicans, if you not bracing the president or his agenda, that can be a challenge you have to overcome. it will be a different situation in a place like nevada, where president trump narrowly lost and even in places like arizona where he only won by 3.5 percentage points. they calculus will be different in each case. trump is a factor to be reckoned with in all of the states where we have competitive races, including where we have republicans needing to defend. al: what happens if kelly ward or dave tarkanian wins in arizona or nevada, would you go ahead and plan those states? what would you do if that happens? susan: i need to explain to the audience that those are republican primary challenges. steven: right, as you know kelly ward is running against jeff flake in arizona. danny tarkanian running against dean heller in nevada. firist of all, i don't think either one of them is going to win. in nevada, we would have real concerns about putting danny tarkanian up against the very the same democrat who gave him his fifth strikeout in a row in the last congressional election. i would be concerned about his competitiveness in a statewide race for that very reason. i don't think kelly ward will end up being -- i am not even sure she will end up being the primary opponent of choice against flake by those who are concerned against senator flake's opposition to trump. both of them have a real baggage that would be hard for them to be competitive in the primary, let alone in general. erica: just to be clear on the last point on tarkanian who just got into the race this week, were he to emerge from the primary, you will not support him? steven: i actually have no views about primary or post primary. tarkanian has only indicated he is interested in getting into the race. he has not said i am a candidate. i don't think he has filed papers yet. we would be very concerned about his competitiveness in a general election. we would try to salvage that race if you were the nominee, but again, i don't think he will end up being the nominee. i'm not entirely sure he would end up making the primary, but we will have to see. erica: could you talk more broadly about the nevada race, which has to be the one you are most concerned about as far as incumbents you are protecting. the challenges dean heller has to navigate between the primary and a general and a state as you -- in a state that you mentioned that trump lost. how does he do that and what will you be doing to help? steven: i actually feel like we are going to end up, by september of next year, feeling like dean heller is in good shape. i think he is starting to really engage with that very challenge you talk about, both navigating a primary and also surviving in a general election. i think we will have a very robust ticket in that election because adam laxalt is running for governor and that will turn out to be a strong republican vote. in an off year where i thing -- think generally an off-year tends to help rerpublicans across the board, including nevada, the old harry reid a political machine is still somewhat in place, but nowhere near as a vibrant as he used to -- as it used to be. i think jacky rosen, while she did defeat danny tarkanian in his last go-around, i do not think she is a powerhouse candidate. she may have a primary of her own despite the efforts of the national makers to keep her out. i am actually somewhat bullish about our chances in nevada, notwithstanding the complexities of the state and the difficulties heller could have in a primary and in a general election. i think in some ways, arizona poses a more difficult complex problem where you already have a very developed primary, potentially other primary candidates will see, and today with the news that kiersten cinema might the challenging jeff flake. she is a more serious contender than i would consider jacky rosen at this point. al: do you anticipate getting involved in the primaries in those two states? steven: we would certainly do so if we felt like we had to defend those seats. al: i want to touch on recruiting for a second. in the some of these states, the ones where trump has won in double digits, you do not have phenomenal candidates, at least that do not have high name identification. is that a concern for you guys right now? it looks like things are starting to turn a little bit in pennsylvania. lou barletta is going to jump in, it looks like. what happens if you do not get some against heidi heitkamp or joe donnelly? what are the concerns there? steven: i would like to say we have a candidate for every race on average, because some states we have two or three. [laughter] the problem is, we have holes in there. i do think we have good candidates who are fielded, and we have primaries that need to sort themselves out. in missouri, for example, the relatively new attorney general, josh holly, has indicated he is going to run against claire mccaskill. he would be a top-tier recruit. there may be a primary there. they'll be some efforts to get people out of that race. i think holly would be a great candidate. in indiana, both todd rokita and luke messer would be able adversaries against joe donnelly. that will be a primary where we will sort out who the better player is. also, in west virginia, we still don't know how strong an iconic stature joe manchin has. i am inclined believe he has a lot of support, but is not that strong. we two very credible candidates running there, the current attorney general, patrick morrisey, and the third district congressman, evan jenkins, who used to be a democrat and made the same journey the governor did just the other day to become a republican. i do think in several states we have good candidates. other places, your point is well taken, we don't have good people to have a shot for larger majorities. al: looking ahead to the maps in future years, do you worry about squandering this opportunity, given there are so many democratic incumbents this year? steven: every day that is a concern of ours. it is interesting. earlier this last week, we announced our fundraising results, and we ended up having a very robust first half of the year. in fact, it was our best first half of a year in a non-election year since we first got started. the reason for that is most of our donors and benefactors see this as a cycle we should not waste. we have an opportunity to grow the majority. it will be complex. it is a presidential mid-term where ordinarily the wind is not at your backs but in your face. there is a little bit of chaos going on in washington that could be complex. i do think we have a shot in a number of these states. we need to put our best foot forward with good candidates. if we do, we might see the ability to grow our majority. not by five seats, but even a couple of seats would change the outcome on some of the votes that we would have had and would go into the future. erica: talking about the agenda, the failed obamacare vote, and now turning presumably not back to obamacare but tax reform, how necessary, crucial is it for your candidates in the midterms that you have some wins on the board? what if you don't get obamacare? don't get tax reform? don't get infrastructure? what are you talking about going into next year? steven: it would be very hard to make the case for sustaining the republican majorities in the senate and the house if we have no point on the board with these issues. the obamacare failure was deeply disappointing to the republican base and obviously for the same reason to the president, and also to senate leader mcconnell. tax reform is a must-do issue in our view. if we fail to get action on that, i think people will start to wonder why republicans are in charge of everything and what they are accomplishing. it is tremendously important. it will take a real team effort. i was reviewing the ancient history on george w. bush's tax cut that he got in 2001. that was a situation where we had two fewer republican votes in the senate than we have now. it was a straight 50-50 split. on a final vote in the senate, there were two republicans out of commission who couldn't make the vote. only one republican voted against the tax package. i don't know if you know who it was. it was john mccain. is always good to remember history on these things. we got 12 democrats for it. it was because george w. bush did a huge amount of work, paid attention to detail, and work the hill himself. he did not rely on the house and senate leadership. he worked the hill to pick up every single one of those 12 democratic votes. i don't know that we will have any democratic support for tax reform, but it will take that kind of sustained effort, leadership by the president and just like ronald reagan did in 1981, and just like george w. bush did in 2001, it will take that kind of sustained leadership from president trump to get his tax cut in 2017. susan: that begs the question in watching how the president approached the hill, do you have any confidence he has the will to do that? steven: you will have to ask me that question later, to quote someone else. [laughter] al: obviously republicans had a lot of success in their campaigns by pushing repeal and replace. looking back on that, do you think that was overzealous or rhetoric that went too far considering it has not been able to happen? steven: no, because i think it was an issue republicans feel strongly about as a matter of policy, not simply because it was good politics. one on the things that concerned me over the past several years about how we approached obamacare as a policy issue, not politically, was that the focus was always on repeal without any context at all. we were not warmed up for what needed to happen next, which was a substantive and thought-through replacement plan. so we walked into this year with only the rhetoric of repeal. that is all we have ever done legislatively, setting aside the political aspect of it. the party was not ready for the intellectual or policy capacity to really be able to figure out what to do as a result. i think it personally was the right policy for the country, and good policy makes good politics. the problem was that people hadn't thought through what the party could build a consensus around to move forward with repeal. al: ron johnson, the day after senator mccain voted against the skinny repeal, he said it was an overpromise. would you agree with him on that? steven: no, i don't think so. i think it was a failure of will. the problem was you had at least three senators who weren't willing to entertain any kind of a step forward to repeal even the most unpopular parts of obamacare. that was the problem. erica: could i get a couple more in on foreign policy? number one, with the north korea threat emerging, does that become an issue in your races? number two, on russia, in that investigation. do voters care about that and is that an issue? steven: most of the polling i have seen on russia at least indicates your average voter is tired of that sort of thing. it is true on both sides when republicans were obsessed with whitewater and monica lewinsky scandal, most voters had tuned out on that a long time earlier and started holding it against republicans who kept fighting on that. even democrats are saying that incidentally on the russia thing that there is a risk of pushing that too hard. you don't hear as many democrats talking about the russia issue. nevertheless, it does come part of the background noise. there is an ongoing investigation. there may be things that pop up periodically that grab people's attention. most voters are going to be concerned about what has happened with the economy. is the republican congress delivering on the things they promise? is the president delivering on the things he promised? those are the things that will figure into people's calculus as to how well the president is doing and how well his team in congress is doing. erica: to north korea if god for bid this threat becomes more imminent, could this turn into a foreign-policy election, or do you not? steven: it is always hard to predict, but it very well could be. george w. bush was planning on running on tax reform and tax cuts and education reform, and then the world changed in 2011. hopefylly, we never get to that kind of situation. foreign-policy crises oppose some existential threat to the united states, and obviously, take all of the energy and oxygen out of the room and you become what president bush really became, a foreign-policy president for most of the rest of his term. hard to know how this resolves and hard to know what the president does that the voters have confidence in or are concerned about. it is still very early to tell. yes, you're exactly right that this is the sort of thing that could all of a sudden become the only topic that dominates everybody's frame of reference as they think about washington politics. al: i want to touch on one last recruiting thing. one state we didn't talk about is michigan. what if kid rock jumps into the race? steven: we would be very interested in his candidacy. there was a poll that came out that showed him eight points behind the incumbent, debbie stabenow. that is not a bad place to start out. the superficial sense of kid rock is that he is an entertainer and a wild redneck. but the truth of the matter is, he has done a lot in his home state philanthropically. he is smart, he thinks about policy, and he is a shrewd businessman. he has not stayed this long in the business he has been in by actually living the life that he looks like he lives on stage. i certainly wouldn't count him out and would be interested in his candidacy. if you are watching, kid, we hope you run. erica: you seem familiar with him. have you met with him or talked with him? steven: no i haven't, the closest i got him was watching him do a convention show last year. i was impressed that there was showmanship and obvious a -- obvious discipline. the whole show was clearly choreographed and i thought this guy has a lot more going on than i knew. then i read up on him more recently and found out there is a lot more to kid rock than the kind of redneck, whiskey-swirling image that he projects very capably. susan: i have a tactical question. the migration of audiences to alternate media other than television, to their own individual screens and the increased use of social media, not just by the president, but people in the political process, how does that affect how you allocate dollars in the upcoming election? steven: that is a great question. every single election cycle we end up allocating more and more of our resources to non-television platforms, social media, digital media, mobile media. a lot of people now encounter most of their digital consumption, younger people especially, on mobile phones. we have also found that different media are better for communicating different kinds of messages. positive brand-building messages work exceptionally well in and digital spaces on social media or persuasion. more negative-oriented messages still pack a greater punch on television. i can't explain exactly why, but we've found that kind of correlation. i think tv remains a critical player, even though you have a huge amount of competition from different places but what we typically do, and we are doing this in alabama, is how much can you project through a television platform? what you need to reinforce their -- through a digital? do the old mechanisms of phone and mail still have an impact? we will measure that and no doubt adjust our strategy as we head into 2018. susan: we look to tuesday's results to see how it all plays out for you. thank you so much for being our guest again. stephen: thank you. newsmakers is back after our meeting with stephen law. erica warner of the ap and al weaver of the washington examiner. all of the political world is buzzing right now about president trump's feud with the senate majority leader. what is your take from all of the people you have been talking to about the president and game with this? erica: it is really hard to know. it has become an issue in washington trying to figure out what the president is doing at any given moment and why he is doing it right. i don't think anyone can really say for sure. we do know some elements of his base are very excited and really cheering him on for attacking mcconnell. been circulating out there among conservative commentators and conservative groups, the "ditch mitch effort." polls show the president's base support is weakening. i don't think anyone can say for sure what he is trying to accomplish. susan: the president seems to be encouraging the leader to pick up health care. is there any truth to that? l: they have to do something. : they have to do something before 2018 to go back to the voters and say we promised you this and we did this. i think that is why tax reform has become more important. president trump knows more about than health care. i think it is something for the president to rally around. theyey can go back and say cut taxes, whether it is a 10 year tax cut or into the future, they can say they did that. the base would receive that well. back fromn they come august break, they have very few legislative days and a big deadlines. not legislative goals like tax reform, but fiscal deadlines. can you talk about some of the challenges and what they are up against? elementhat is another that makes the feud between trump and mcconnell inexplicable is that they have a monumental agenda in september. , there are always the things you have to do and the things you want to do legislatively. in september, there are critical thinks they have to do. they have to fund the government to avoid a shutdown on september 30. they have to raise the debt limit to avoid default, which would be an unprecedented market shattering event that has never occurred. those both are going to have to be bipartisan. they have to happen. meanwhile, the administration is setting expectations very high for movement on tax reform. as steve lott was telling us earlier, it is that time when the party -- steve law was telling us earlier, it is time they stop fighting each other and get this done. susan: on the house and senate the feud between the president and mcconnell is important. how do they come together for these important pieces of legislation? beauty something we have not seen in some time. you don't see the president of the party go against the majority leader. we are in a new reality and we will have to see what happens, especially as you look toward 2018. that will be a situation for republicans. there are challenges for the party. not only are messages being mixed, but dollars being spent to defend the seat, which plays into the other party's hand. how do you see this playing out with the insurgent candidates wanting to get into these races as stephen a says we have someone for every race. erica: they will have to wait and see the trump affect and how it remains unknown in the elections. the extent to which the traditional republican base overlaps with the trump base, it is not totally clear. in a state like arizona where you have kelly ward challenging jeff flake. she does got $300,000 from the mercer family, huge trump backers. does that mean she has trump's support? if so, what is the implication of that? we are not sure yet. it is uncharted territory. the big? is what does the president -- ion mark is does the president go campaign against democrats that republicans are trying? i don't think we can predict. close, on tuesday there are three main republican competitors and the primary that have to reach a 50% bar. is that correct? yes susan so they go to a political runoff? yes. the underpinning in the runoff and sls has been spending a lot of money against mo brooks painting him as an anti-trump character. it is not necessarily accurate. they are still pushing the narrative. it is likely to be strange. susan cole all this with north korea hanging over everyone's head at this time. all this with north korea hanging over everyone's head at this time. thank you for your time. al: thank you. tonight on cue and day. responsecial and legal to the issues that black men have is to lock us up to put us in cages and to stop and frisk us to treat us as citizens whose rights other people don't respect. we are not full citizens of the united states. >> georgetown university law school takes a critical look at the u.s. chemical justice system and its impact on african-american men in his book chokehold, policing black men. >> there has never been a time where community relations has been anywhere near good. so for a long time, if you were a black person and you called the police to report a crime, if you were the victim, the police did not a much attention to it. now the sense is that the police are overwhelmingly in african-american communities, but not to protect those communities, but rather to lock folks up. tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> this week at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span. on monday, former national security advisers who served the last two presidents, including stephen hadley, former national security advisor for president george w bush. >> i am a little worried. i think we are in a dangerous period with russia. americans areded anti-russian. his ambassador says there's no russian relations in the united states. he is basically saying if you think i am an enemy, i will show you what it is like to have >> an enemy in russia. tuesday, the future of the internet. here is white house interim chief officer. >> we're talking about how certain platforms seem to provide people with information that reaffirms what they already think. it is not like facebook said, hey, you are conservative, i am going to keep show you conservative content. they said, i am going to show you things from the people who know and i will show you content from the pages you like. when you start clicking on those things, i will figure out whose content you seem to like and keep show you more of that. had a facebook not done that, we would not be having this conversation because they would not have grown to the scale to which they grew today. >> wednesday a form on the changing role of cities. here is the former mayor of rio de janeiro. >> this is a transition. there it i think cities will play a major role fighting against the populace. change cities can representative to democracy is seen as a great machine to change what is going on. >> thursday, an in-depth look at the opioid epidemic. including the ohio attorney general, who is suing several drug companies for their marketing of opioid painkillers. >> what is different about this drug problem that we have is help our basic it is. it is absolutely everywhere. it is an hour's most communities and cities. affluentour most suburbs. >> and friday supreme court justice. >> you said at the very beginning of our conversation at we are democracy. that means the judiciary has an important role to play in policing the boundaries of all the other branches. that can make the judiciary and unpopular set of people when they say to a governor or president or congress, no, you it is do that because just not within your constitutional powers. >> watch this week at 8 p.m. c-span and c-span.org. listen using the free c-span radio app. >> now a discussion on the situation in the middle east and the foreign policies of the bush, obama, and trump administrations.