Watch CBS News

Face the Nation transcripts April 24, 2016: Kasich, Sanders

JOHN DICKERSON, CBS HOST: Today on FACE THE NATION: Donald Trump's campaign manager promises a new Donald Trump, but Donald Trump seems to like the old one.

The Republican front-runner was in full form on the campaign trail yesterday in Connecticut.


DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Connecticut is doing very poorly. And we don't have to talk about it anymore, because it's all depressing. OK? I sort of don't like toning it down.


DICKERSON: And later:


TRUMP: If I was presidential, first of all, I would have teleprompter. You ever see crooked Hillary Clinton? She walks in. Good afternoon, Bridgeport. How are you?


DICKERSON: We have gotten to the "candidates imitating each other" stage.


HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Trump keeps saying things like, well, you know, I didn't really mean it.


CLINTON: It was all part of my reality TV show.


DICKERSON: In all five Northeast states holding primaries Tuesday, things are looking good for Trump and Clinton.

What's the next move for Republican John Kasich and Democrat Bernie Sanders? We will talk to both of them. We have new Battleground Tracker poll results. And we will take a look back at the 1964 effort by Republicans to stop conservative Barry Goldwater. Plus, our tribute to the musician who touched millions.

It's all coming up on FACE THE NATION.

Good morning, and welcome to FACE THE NATION. I'm John Dickerson.

Heading into Tuesday's primaries in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, things look good for front- runner Donald Trump. In our new Battleground Tracker in Pennsylvania, Donald Trump leads the field by wide margin. He's at 49 to Ted Cruz at 26 and John Kasich is in third at 22 percent.

Indiana holds its primary on May 3. It's where the stop Trump forces think they have their best shot. The race is tighter there. Trump is in first with 40 percent. Cruz has 35. And Kasich trails with 20 percent support among Republican voters.

We will get to the Democrats in a moment, but first Ohio Governor John Kasich joins us from the campaign trail in Rhode Island.

Governor, the Club for Growth is running an ad in which they say that because you have so few delegates that a vote for you is really a vote for Donald Trump. What is your response to that ad?

GOV. JOHN KASICH (R-OH), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, first of all, they are working aggressively against me, because they are for somebody else. Secondly, a vote for Cruz or Trump, frankly, is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

I have some new numbers here that just came out of New Hampshire. And let me tell you, Hillary is at 50, Trump is at 31. Hillary is at 48, Cruz is at 34. And in the third matchup, Hillary is at 36 and John Kasich at 50.

And what's really amazing is, they surveyed the voters in New Hampshire who actually voted in the Republican primary, which Trump won, where I finished second. And today, according to this poll, I lead Donald Trump 26 to 22.

Look, I'm the only one who can defeat Hillary Clinton consistently in 15 national polls, and even the Electoral College shows the same thing. So, look, at the end of it all, I think, when we're at the convention, the delegates are going to want to know who can beat Hillary, because if we don't beat Hillary, we lose the Supreme Court, the United States Senate, state and local races. That's where we're heading.

And these guys don't have enough time to turn around super high negatives.

DICKERSON: You're making the electability argument. In 1964, a Pennsylvania governor made the same argument against Barry Goldwater. Governor Scranton said, "I'm more electable," and the delegates just didn't listen. Why are they going to listen now?

(LAUGHTER) KASICH: Because, if they look at history, Goldwater got smoked. We lost everything.

I mean, that's why, because I think delegates are pretty smart when it comes to picking somebody who can actually win in the fall. And, look, we're picking up delegates. I'm start -- my message is being heard. I'm emerging. We get big crowds here in Rhode Island, had huge turnout today.

We just keep putting one foot in front of the other, and it will work out. And the message of growth, of opportunity, of bringing people together, this is what needs to be heard, not this negative message of gloom and doom.

And "The Washington Post" said, the reason Kasich doesn't do so well is because he's not an apocalyptic candidate. Yes, I don't think the apocalypse is coming next week. I think we can straight this country out, and I'm going to keep talking about it.

DICKERSON: You're competing in that delegate conversation with Donald Trump and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, said this, this week to some Republicans -- quote -- "He gets it. The part he's been playing is evolving. The negatives are going to come down. The image is going to change."

What is your reaction to that?

KASICH: Well, I don't want to have anybody have negatives, but I can tell you, John, after my first year as governor, my -- I was one of the most unpopular governors, maybe the most unpopular governor in the country.

It takes a long time to change negatives. People have to see that you're actually being fruitful in your work. What happened with me is when people started getting work, and we started balancing budgets and reaching out to people, it changed.

But you can't turn negatives around overnight. It's not possible to do, because when you create that, that negative impression in people, you just can't talk your way out of it, unfortunately, for those that have high negatives.

DICKERSON: Let me ask you about the convention coming up, the Republican Party Convention. There are reports that you have been vetting running mates. Will -- and that you might announce one as early as June. What can you tell us about that?

KASICH: Well, we have some old hands now who are beginning to do that. These things come quickly, and you don't want to have yourself in position where you have got to pick somebody out of a hat. So I have some skilled hands who are beginning now to take a look and figure out who would really fit.

And it's just starting, so there isn't a lot to report.

DICKERSON: I could imagine, though, John Kasich, in making his argument to the delegates, might say, hey, here is the ticket, not just John Kasich. Here is what the ticket would look like, and that might be...


KASICH: Well, I think that's interesting.

DICKERSON: Might do you that?

KASICH: Might be. Might be. Yes, I mean, it's possible.

I don't run the campaign. I'm just the candidate, OK? Well, I know what is going on. I had to approve that we were going to start vetting. These are things you talk about as a group. I will have my strong opinions of it at some point, but we're at the preliminary -- we're at the preliminary stage.

And, yes, I think it's always possible. Reagan tried to do that in 1976. He didn't win.

DICKERSON: Didn't work out so well for him.

KASICH: He was offering a vice president.



Well, you know, did work out later. And he influenced the country and there's something to be said for that.

DICKERSON: Let me ask you about the convention. Security measures, there's talk about if it might get rough. What are you doing in terms of security in case there's anything associated with the convention? Are you adding more security?

KASICH: Well, John, I don't think I should be getting into the security discussion, but we try to be prepared for all events as best as humanly possible.

The Secret Service will be the lead entity on this. Our highway patrol is intimately involved. Of course, Cleveland police, there will be other entities of law enforcement from around the country that will help. And we prepare for what we think could happen, and we have been preparing for number of things over the years since I have been governor. And we have good security people.

I talk to them about it. At the end of the day, they will be ready, but I don't think I need to talk about security on television.

DICKERSON: All right.

And, finally, Governor, I wanted to ask you, Donald Trump had some difficulty with your name and pronouncing it. I want to play you a clip and get your reaction to that.


TRUMP: I'm millions of votes more than Kasich. And I don't know how you pronounce his name, Kasich. It's I-C-H. Every time I see it, I say Kasich. But it's pronounced Kasich. So, I'm doing a very good job saying it now.

But it's really -- you know, can we ask him to change the spelling of his name? Are we allowed to do that? So ridiculous.



DICKERSON: Any advice for Donald Trump there on the pronunciation of your name, Governor?

KASICH: No, I just -- I find these things amusing. When they're talking about you, John, that's a good thing. They used to say, if they spell your name right, that's good.

No, I kind of chuckle. It makes me laugh. So, god bless him and god bless you and our listeners.

DICKERSON: Thank you, Governor. We will end it right there.

KASICH: All right. Thank you.

DICKERSON: Turning now to the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders by eight points in our Pennsylvania Battleground Tracker, 51 percent to 43 percent. In Indiana, it's a tighter race there, too. Clinton is up five points over Sanders 49 to 44 among likely Democratic primary voters.

With that, we turn to Senator Sanders, who joins us from Providence this morning.

Senator, I want to ask, Hillary Clinton has more votes and delegates. Is it your view that Democrats want to vote for you, but that there is something rigged about the system that is keeping that from happening?


We started this campaign 60 points behind Secretary Clinton. And in the last couple of weeks, a number of the national polls have had us either tied, me ahead a little bit or her ahead a little bit.

We have come an enormous way. We are running against the most powerful political organization in United States of America. And I'm very proud of the campaign that we have run. We have won 16 states right now. In almost all of the contests, we win the younger people. By that, I mean not just kids, but people 45 years of age or under.

I think the ideas we are talking about are what the American people and people in Democratic Party want to hear. We are the future of the Democratic Party. So, I'm very proud of where we are, and we look forward to finding this out through California.

DICKERSON: One of the issues you have talked about so much is income inequality.

NPR did an analysis, though, and found in places where income inequality was high, that Hillary was winning in those places.

You were asked about this on "Meet the Press" and you said, well, poor people don't vote. But in states like Ohio, Florida, New York, and even Michigan, which you won, those who would be -- those earning less than $30,000 ended up voting more for Hillary Clinton. So, that doesn't seem to be the case.

SANDERS: Well, but -- well, first thought, one of the challenges that we have as a nation is that we have one of the lowest voter turnouts in general of any major country on Earth.

In the last national election, 63 percent of the American people didn't vote and those numbers were worse for young people and for low- income people. I believe that what we are trying to do in this campaign, John, with some success, is bring people into the political process.

And, obviously, we have got to do better, but I would hope that if I am the nominee that on Election Day you're going to see a very, very large voter turnout. And if that is the case, I think we can change the dynamics of American politics, so it is not just big money interests who help elect candidates through outrageous campaign contributions, but what we have is vibrant democracy where old people participate.

DICKERSON: But do you still stand by the idea that because poor people aren't voting, that is why you're not winning?

SANDERS: Well, I think we would -- the fact of the matter is, is that we have low voter turnouts.

In New York state, three million independents were ineligible to vote. I think that that is pretty crazy. And I think that, as a nation, we have got to significantly increase the voter turnout. There is no doubt that among low-income people, the voting turnout is quite low.

DICKERSON: The -- one of the -- in our polls, one of the things we found is that your supporters really want to you continue even if you don't get the number of delegates because you have so affected Hillary's positions on so many things.

If that's the case and you were to continue, is there a specific issue or two that you, given leverage you have, would demand that the nominee support that Hillary Clinton is not supporting at the moment?

SANDERS: Well, John, there's not a question whether if we are going to continue. We are going to continue. We're going to fight this out to the last vote is cast. That's what democracy is about. You can't say to the largest state in this country, California, you can't determine who the nominee will be or what the agenda will be. The basic issue -- issues that we are running on is that we have a rigged economy where the middle class continues to decline and almost all the income and wealth goes to the top 1 percent, that we are not being vigorous enough in combating climate change.

And let me tell you something, because I'm on the Environmental Committee, and the scientists are very clear. If we don't transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, this planet is in serious trouble for our kids and our grandchildren.

And I got to also add that what we are going to fight for is to end the corrupt campaign finance system by which billionaires of Wall Street and super PACs are able to buy elections. Those are the issues that I think are mobilizing the American people and we will continue to fight for.

DICKERSON: Yes, I guess what I was asking is whether you will take the fight all the way to the convention and say something like, if you don't get nomination, I would like Hillary Clinton to support that $15 national minimum wage, reinstate Glass-Steagall, come out against fracking more forcefully, make specific requests like that.

SANDERS: John, that was a very good start. You're doing well. Keep going.

DICKERSON: So, you would do all that?

SANDERS: But why don't we throw in the fact -- yes, and why don't we throw in the fact that we are the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all people as a right?

And we need a Medicare-for-all health care program. We need to guarantee paid family and medical leave. We need to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. All of those issues are issues that I believe that the vast majority of people in the Democratic Party support. I hope that if I do not win the nomination, that that will be part of Clinton's agenda.

DICKERSON: Your strategist Tad Devine said that if -- after next Tuesday, you may rethink, reevaluate your tone towards Hillary Clinton. What does that mean?

SANDERS: I have not the slightest idea. You have to ask Tad.

My own view is that we are going to debate in a respectful manner the differences of opinions that we have. And we have many differences with Secretary Clinton, as you indicated. I believe the minimum wage should be 15 bucks an hour. She believes it should be $12 an hour.

I believe that we have got to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. I believe that we need a carbon tax, which many of the international financial organizations agree with me on, if we are going to be serious about transforming our energy system and saving this planet.

I believe in -- my foreign policy views are quite different than Secretary Clinton's, not only that she voted for the war in Iraq, and I opposed it. I have not great fan of regime change, because you have too many unintended consequences. And I do not want our brave men and women in the military to get sucked into perpetual welfare in the Middle East.

DICKERSON: All right.

SANDERS: So, I will continue contrasting my views with the secretary's.

DICKERSON: OK. Senator Sanders, thanks so much.

SANDERS: Thank you very much.

DICKERSON: Joining us now from more on those upcoming primaries is CBS News director of elections Anthony Salvanto.

So, Anthony, Donald Trump had big night in New York, so what do the rest of the states look like for him and the Republican field?

ANTHONY SALVANTO, CBS NEWS ELECTIONS DIRECTOR: Well, coming up Tuesday, starting with Pennsylvania, where he's got a big lead, things look good.

So, if he gets bulk of delegates out of there, now we look a week ahead to Indiana, where we also find him up. And what's happening in Indiana looks a lot like what's happening in many other states, where Ted Cruz is making argument that Donald Trump isn't conservative enough. Well, Ted Cruz is winning the voters who want the most conservative things done.

But those voters are outnumbered by people who say, do whatever it takes. do whatever it takes. And that group is for Trump.

DICKERSON: And Indiana is the place where the stop Trump movement thought they had a chance, but he's ahead there.

SALVANTO: Exactly.

That was one of the places where Ted Cruz was saying, this is where we can put up the barricades to try and slow down Trump's momentum.

DICKERSON: So, big picture now. Let's look at that big map in the Republican Party field. Where do we stand in Donald Trump's march to that magic number of 1,237?

SALVANTO: I think he now has a clear sight line to clinching the nomination, if you figure he does well on Tuesday, if he can just be competitive, let alone win Indiana, that would keep him on pace, such that, as we get out then to June, where the last of the primaries will be held, he will be in position to clinch. I think his issue is not just simply math and whether or not he can clinch, but if he can bridge this gap that we see in state after state between voters who are for him and very enthusiastic, very optimistic, and voters who are not for him and say that they're concerned, that emotional gap, then I think the math starts to take care of itself.

DICKERSON: That's why he's perhaps changing his approach to things in terms of his tone.

Let's switch to the Democrats. Pennsylvania, Indiana, how does it shape up for them?

SALVANTO: Pennsylvania, leads for Hillary Clinton. She expects to have a good night Tuesday as well, and then on out to Indiana, where she has got a smaller, but a lead on Bernie Sanders.

Look, the big picture of Hillary Clinton here is that she has enough of a delegate lead right now, and because of the way Democrats give out their delegates, which is both some to the winner and the loser, she could actually afford to lose from here on out, lose primaries, as long as she keeps it close, and she will still clinch the nomination.

DICKERSON: And that's among pledged delegates, she'd still clinch?


DICKERSON: Now, let's -- if you're Sanders voter, why do you stay in, then, if -- why do you keep -- why do you want to him to stay in? Why are you still voting for him?

SALVANTO: Well, there is a sense of inevitability creeping here in, too, where very few Sanders voters actually say he's very likely to win the nomination.

But they think he is having, at the very least, a positive effect on this campaign. They say that they think he is pushing Hillary Clinton towards more progressive policies, which is what they want. And, as well, historically -- and you know this better than anybody -- if somebody finishes second, what they want is that leverage. What they want is to be able to have influence over that platform.

And Democrats say he's getting it.

DICKERSON: That's right.

Just in the last 20 seconds here, Anthony, is there any sign that anybody is worried about the fight continuing, hurting the ultimate nominee?

SALVANTO: No, they aren't.

Democrats, very few of them, say that any of this has been negative. And, in fact, they are enthusiastic about -- both candidates, about both Clinton and Sanders, whoever comes out. So, it's all positive, at least on Democratic side.

DICKERSON: All right, well, we will see if it continues to be.

Anthony Salvanto, thanks so much. We will look forward to having you back again at the table to explain all this for us.

And for all of you, we will be back in a moment with our tribute to Prince.


DICKERSON: We don't often pause here on FACE THE NATION for musical tributes, but the death of Prince this week touched people all over the world.

Fans piled flowers and homemade tributes at his home outside of Minneapolis. In New Orleans, they marched in the streets to celebrate three decades of Prince's music. Buildings were colored purple. Everyone from Broadway to the Boss paid tribute.

Old friends reconnected, remembering the songs they had listened to together growing up. And fans everywhere played their favorite Prince songs as they never had before.

President Obama was headed to London when the news broke.


BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States: It so happens our ambassador has a turntable, and so this morning, we played "Purple Rain" and "Delirious" just to get warmed up before we left the house for important bilateral meetings.


DICKERSON: The president was no ordinary fan. The first couple hosted a secret White House Prince concert for 500 of their friends last year.

John Kasich tried to explain to us that he couldn't comment on a news report because:


KASICH: Because there were too many other things I wanted to look at, including some of the tributes to Prince.

DICKERSON: Were you a Prince fan?

KASICH: You know, who didn't love "Party like it's 1999?" And my wife the other day told me, upon learning of his death, she said, "Tomorrow, I will be wearing all purple."

His death had has an enormous impact with fans all across the world. It's pretty remarkable.


DICKERSON: And in an election where there seems to be a Donald Trump angle to every story, the billionaire once inspired a Prince song.

Even this reporter has something to say about Prince. In 1984, he was the first musician I ever saw live in concert.

Prince Rogers Nelson died at the age of 57.


DICKERSON: After Donald Trump's victory in New York and his likely wins in next week's contests, Republicans who oppose him have to evaluate how far they will go. Will they keep fighting at the convention, even if he becomes the nominee?

That's what some Republicans did in 1964.


DICKERSON (voice-over): More than 50 years before there was a never Trump movement, there was stop Goldwater. That movement was made up of moderate Republicans trying to keep Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater from winning their party's nomination. They worried his staunch conservatism would lead to the destruction of the GOP.

Although the Goldwater Girls lent a sunny touch to the campaign, even its slogan...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (singing): In your heart, you know he's right.

DICKERSON: ... hinted at something darker. Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act had attracted people that old-guard Republicans wanted no part of, including overt racists.

New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who had lost to Goldwater in the primaries, railed against these extremists.

GOV. NELSON ROCKEFELLER (R), NEW YORK: There is no place in this Republican Party for who would infiltrate its ranks, distort its aims, and convert it into a cloak of apparent respectability for a dangerous extremism.

DICKERSON: The crowd shouted Rockefeller down.

ROCKEFELLER: Some of you don't like to hear it, ladies and gentlemen, but it's the truth.

DICKERSON: Rockefeller won no converts.

It was precisely Goldwater's outspoken, politically incorrect style that appealed to so many. So, when he accepted the nomination, Goldwater threw Rockefeller's charge of extremism back in his face.

BARRY GOLDWATER (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would remind you that extremism is the defense of liberty is no vice.

DICKERSON: Goldwater triumphed at the convention, but was clobbered in the general election.

A decade later, Ronald Reagan would pick up the Goldwater mantle and take on the sitting president of his own party.

More on that in our next installment. We will be right back.


DICKERSON: We will be right back with a lot more FACE THE NATION.

Stay with us.


DICKERSON: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. I'm John Dickerson.

Joining us now, Reihan Salam is executive editor of "The National Review," Ed O'Keefe is with "The Washington Post," CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes covers the Democrats for the network, and Ezra Klein is the founder of

Nancy, you've been covering out there Senator Sanders. What do you make of him now after New York, the conversation I had with him, do you see a tonal shift in his campaign?

NANCY CORDES, CBS NEWS CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not enough of a tonal shift for the Clinton's camps like -- liking, but a bit, a bit. He isn't saying she lacks judgment anymore, at least not this week. He isn't saying that she doesn't know what she's doing or that she's not qualified, which is -- which really wrangled him -- them. But they still don't like the fact that he's creating a contract, let's say, on Wall Street, saying she needs to hand over her Wall Street speeches, what could possibly be in them? They feel that that is still giving ammunition to the Trump camp. On the other hand, he is still a candidate. He needs to be able to draw contrast between himself and his only other opponents, which is Hillary Clinton.

DICKERSON: Ezra, can you give me a sense -- what's your sense of how negative Bernie Sanders has been? I mean there is a lot of territory he could cover that he has not.

EZRA KLEIN, VOX.COM: I do not think this has been a negative campaign at all. We actually -- my colleague, Matt Yglesias at Vox, he dug up an amazing clip from 1992 where Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton went at it. And Jerry Brown was attacking Hillary Clinton's legal fees and over corruption. And it -- when you go and watch that, when you go and watch what this looked like in past debates, this has been the gentlest, most respectful, most substantive also campaign we've seen I think in a long time in a way that does credit to them both. They have real differences. They've explained them quite clearly. And they generally kept it above the board, which is one reason I'm skeptical of those who say it's going to be all that hard for the party to unite after the convention.

DICKERSON: That's right.

ED O'KEEFE, "WASHINGTON POST": I thought it was interesting, John, that he conceded to you that he's not interested in using his tens of millions of dollars to start a new political action group or to, you know, endorse like-minded Democratic candidates, but that he wants to become a member of the party and focus on policy, minimum wage, affordable health care, all those other things.

REIHAN SALAM, NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: Well, there's something very striking about that, the fact that he has not been a Democrat for decades. And the movement that he's built really is something separate and distinct from the Democratic Party. So when he says that, what he's saying is that the Democratic Party is kind of a weak host that's waiting to be taken over by this new movement.

The trouble, however, is, look at the fact that Bernie Sanders actually has lot of very wealthy supporters. That's kind of interesting. He's calling for higher taxes on the rich and what have you. What people are missing is that Bernie Sanders is speaking to a lot of white voters in many cases who feel marginalized by the rising place of identity politics in the party, the rising place of African- Americans and Latinos. They don't necessarily think of it that way. But Bernie Sanders is giving them a way to say that, hey, we still have a place at the table.

KLEIN: I -- I'm --


KLEIN: I'm very skeptical of that interpretation of Sanders. I think when you look at what's happening with Sanders and the party right now you see fundamentally a generational split. Above everything you see, you see a tremendous generational split, winning 80 percent of young voters in New Hampshire. That's one reason I think that Hillary Clinton might win this election, even as Bernie Sanders ends up being the future of the Democratic Party. You can't be Hillary Clinton again unless you're Hillary Clinton. She has such deep connections to the party's institutional dimensions, such a tremendous history with its various constituent actors. But if you're a young, ambitious Democratic politician asking what model that appears successful that you can replicate, Bernie Sanders, who, as you say, was not part of the party for a long time, has done this entirely on message. That, I thinks is -- and is one that the rising class of young voters in the Democratic Party --

SALAM: The trouble is --

KLEIN: That, I think, is going to have a tremendous effect on the next possible politicians.

SALAM: The trouble is, that if you look at African-American voters, for example, here is a constituency that is liberal, but not monolithically liberal. You have a large number of conservative and modern voters who do not vote Republican, right? So that's part of the reason why Hillary Clinton has fared well with these voters. When you look at younger voters, it is true that Bernie Sanders has done well with young voters of color, and yet when we look at that constituency, those folks have not been voting in large numbers. When we see other voters of color coming into the process later on, my guess is that they will be more inclined to support someone like Hillary Clinton, who is talking about the particular challenges facing voters of color. So this is going to be very interesting. This is something that is distinct to Democratic politics as it's evolved over recent decades.

CORDES: And don't you think that the candidate who -- who says, we don't have to make these big compromises, we can go for broke, is always going to appeal to young voters who are idealistic, where someone like Hillary Clinton, who has been around the bend, who has had to make some of these unpleasant compromises that basically every politician has to make to get things done, you know, is -- is not going to be as inspirational to someone who is observing politics for the first time.

DICKERSON: Ed, do you think there's any danger, these younger voters who have turned out in such numbers for Bernie Sanders, who are excited by him in a way that they're not for Hillary Clinton, that if she were to get the nomination, that she's in danger of really losing those voters? I mean won't -- if Donald Trump is the alternative, aren't they coming to her?

O'KEEFE: That's -- that's the gamble that they're hoping for, but I think they're very conscious and concerned about it. I think that's part of why there's a real hope and concern that she maybe shows off a little more of her personality and focuses on the history of -- of what would be the first woman presidency. Also, a lot of sensitivity to who the running mate would be. Is it somebody who is as liberal or similarly liberal to Bernie Sanders or someone who's a little younger and might draw out those younger voters.

CORDES: And it all depends on Bernie Sanders himself and what he does.

O'KEEFE: Right.

CORDES: If, you know, he has a -- a -- a reckoning with Hillary Clinton and gets behind her says, this is the candidate, we have to beat Donald Trump, he has said that he will do whatever he can to defeat Donald Trump. He hasn't said, I'll do whatever I can to back Hillary Clinton. You know, if he says to his millions of supporters, look, she's -- she's talking the talk, she's walking the walk that I want her to, you need to vote for her, that will make a huge difference.

DICKERSON: In 1980, Ezra, Ted Kennedy, who fought Jimmy Carter, said, I want the following things on the platform. And he got a lot of those. Is there a -- is there a "to do list" or a specific list that -- that Sanders might want where he could use this leverage he has with all these voters who love to say, I would like Hillary Clinton to adopt the following positions, not just speak in broad terms, but be quite specific? KLEIN: I think platforms used to offer vehicle for that kind of trade that doesn't -- that people don't feel has potency any more. I think that even if Sanders believes -- even if Sanders did get Hillary Clinton to say endorse a carbon tax, the fact of the matter is, she would then get into office. She'd be probably face a Republican House, assuming she won the presidency, and she wouldn't necessarily do it anyway. So I'm not sure that somebody likes Sanders, with his must -- which -- with as much mistrust in the system as he has, would see that as a way to go. What I do think is going to be the interesting question with him is whether, if he does not win the nomination, he converts his fundraising, he converts his movement into a down ballot movement. How much is he really interested in meeting a revolution that changes the Democratic Party and, more broadly, the country, and how much was the Bernie sanders revolution just an effort to get Bernie Sanders elected to the presidency?

DICKERSON: And what you're talking about is a multi-year, multi- process. I mean it would start in this election, but presumably keep going, keep going.

KLEIN: Right, I mean does he -- does he want to change the party so in the future candidates like Bernie Sanders are the candidates of the establishment, or was this really just about his particular campaign and when -- if his campaign doesn't succeed, then he walks away from it.

CORDES: And --

O'KEEFE: And there are about two dozen Bernie-crats, as they call themselves, running for Congress in different districts across the country. Most of them are going to come up short. But that would be a very effective way to sort of turn his -- turn his money and his -- and his mechanisms.

SALAM: It's important to keep in mind, however, that as you move the party in one direction, as you grow it in one way, you, of course, risk losing some of the people that have been supporting the party all along. Now right now, given that this looks as though it might be a Trump-Clinton race, you know, all of the relevant hemorrhaging is likely to be happening on the Republican side. But, again, we're talking about what is likely to be a decade-long process in which Bernie Sanders and his acolytes are hoping to remake the party and that will be very interesting looking at what that realignment winds up looking like because the Republican Party post-Trump is going to, of course, have to adapt to those changes and adapt to who is actually sloughing off of the Democratic coalition.

O'KEEFE: Yes, still adapting in the Tea Party mode (ph).

SALAM: I -- I think it's going to depend partly on how he feels that he's being treated by the party --


SALAM: At the convention and going forward. Because I've asked him before point blank, so are you going to use your prodigious abilities to raise money on behalf of this party that you now belong to. And he said, you know, stay tuned. He wasn't quite decided what he's going to do yet.

DICKERSON: Last word to you, Ezra.

KLEIN: An underutilized talent of the Clintons, or an under noticed talent, is how good they are turning former -- former enemies into allies. She's good at this with (ph) Republicans in 2000 in the Senate. Richard (INAUDIBLE) ended up funding many Clinton global initiatives. They are very good at treating former opponents well.

O'KEEFE: David Brock (ph).

DICKERSON: All right, and she --

KLEIN: David Brock.

DICKERSON: She may already be in that process now. We heard her this week sort of welcoming the Sanders people, or trying to welcome them into the fold.

Let's pause here. We'll be right back with more from our panel and we'll talk about that other party.


DICKERSON: And we're back with our panel.

Reihan, I want to start with you. Something Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's campaign manager, said to a group of Republicans meaning. He said, quote, "you'll start to see more depth of the person. The real person. You'll see a different guy." Saying that Donald Trump is going to evolve. What do you make of that?

SALAM: There was one indication of this, when we saw Donald Trump speak at AIPAC, he gave a speech that he had read from a teleprompter. He was very disciplined. He said basically all the usual things one would expect a Republican candidate to say. The trouble is that Donald Trump has done as well that he has because of his attitude, because of his ability to create excitement and energy. And I find it very hard to believe that he's going to be able to maintain that discipline tone, because that's not really abut policy issues. He's taken a dozen different policy stances over the course of his campaign so far. So I just find it very unlikely that Manafort is going to be able to discipline him in this way.

DICKERSON: And does it work, Ezra, John Kasich said in sort of an interesting moment there talking about arrival. He said, well, my negatives were really high. It takes a long time for them to go down. Usually politicians never want to admit their negatives are high. Donald Trumps are very high. Can he do anything -- could any politician do anything to drive down those negatives?

KLEIN: Well, there's -- there's always something you can do if you can become the very different person. The problem is, it turns out to be extremely hard to become a very different person on the fly, in the middle of the campaign, when you're tired all the time, when you're always in front of the cameras, when the media already has ideas and narratives about you that somewhat structure what they do and don't report.

I always think it's actually quite funny, the idea that Trump is going to unveil a moderate part of himself. I remember him coming out and saying, if I'm elected president, I'll become the more politically correct guy you can imagine. A person who could make that kind of makeover of himself is not the person who comes out and says that aloud. He does not have the discipline to say everything he's thinking. And as such, as Reihan says, abtudanaly (ph), he will not be able to offer the sobriety that I think codes for people as moderate, which is separate from policy positions that are moderate.

O'KEEFE: And what's fascinating, if you talk to people who are voting for Trump or who want him to win, it's either, I like that he says whatever he wants, that he's off the cuff, that he's totally un- politic, or they say, well, he may be saying those things, but he's not going to actually be that way when he's president. So even if he tries to change it, you know, it may keep his base of support, but there's no reason to believe he's going to be able to grow his base of support if he makes those changes because everyone else will say, well, we've see what's been going on for the last night months.

CORDES: I mean here's the guy who says, I can be really presidential, just wait, and then turns around and says, well, if I were being presidential, none of you would be here. You'd all be so bored by me.


KLEIN: Yes, that was very telling.

DICKERSON: But isn't this -- though, Reihan, what some people who have tried to warm to Trump have kind of hoped for, that he would be malleable. There was one quote from somebody on The Hill basically saying, you know, the -- the Republican leadership will tell him kind of what to do on a policy front and he'll come in right behind that because he's a moveable fellow. So isn't that what Manafort is essentially saying, is he said we'll get to wherever you need us to get?

SALAM: There have been a variety of interpretations and a variety of moments when people have thought that. So there's a timing (ph) of several months ago, after South Carolina, when you had Bob Dole and other, you know, grandes (ph) of the party saying that, oh, you know, gosh, he actually might be a lot more sensible than someone like say Ted Cruz. You know, he might be more malleable in these ways you describe. And then that goes away. And then people, you know, go silent, the people who were saying that he could become more sensible in these ways.

You know, my sense is that he is going to try to build a brand. He's going to try to build excitement around the campaign. But, beyond that, he is a rogue agent. And he also, by the way, how's he going to raise money? You know, he's been promising that he's a self-funder this entire time, and the Democrats are going to have tremendous resources at their disposal. He has already alienated large numbers of major donors. There's a huge apparatus, not just the party, but around the party, that is not going to coalesce around him this time. So he is going to feel a need for that free media. And how is he going to get it?

DICKERSON: That's right. And, Nancy, his argument, he's going to have to find somebody to fund this general election --

CORDES: Right.

DICKERSON: Because it's super expensive. But one of his big arguments is, I'm self-funded, I'm not bought and paid for. How's he going to fix that?

CORDES: Well, you know, he can put some more of his own money into it, you know, and -- and he is worth between $4 billion or $7 billion or however much he says he's -- he's worth that day.

DICKERSON: Oh, he says ten. That's for sure. It's just other people saying --

CORDES: Today it's -- today's it's ten. But he is going to have a huge problem, as Reihan said, raising money. You know, the Koch brothers, just today, saying, you know, they might even get behind Hillary Clinton before they get behind -- behind Donald Trump. And -- and there's even a question of whether a lot of these big sponsors, who you typically see at the convention, will be there or whether they will pull out because they don't want to be associated with the Donald Trump brand.

DICKERSON: Where, Ezra, do you think the ultimate Trump convention argument is, which is about fairness? He basically says, I have the votes, I have the delegates, I -- whether I get the majority of delegates by this date doesn't matter. The fair thing to do would be to give me the nomination. How do you think he's doing in making that case?

KLEIN: I think it is going to be very hard to know how that's going to feel until right up at the convention. I've been talking to some of the other campaigns about this and they're very confident and they'll make the argument that, look, the only rule here is you need a majority of the delegates, and, if not, it's anybody's game.

And I think that this is a place where your rules conflict with your norms. What people are used to doing, what is going to feel normal to them, is to give it to the guy in the lead. To give it to someone else is going to feel, at that moment, after that first ballot vote, like a tremendous, tremendous move. And I don't know how they're going to build the permission structure for those delegates to give it to Ted Cruz or to some outsider. So I think Donald Trump has a pretty easy argument here. The question is if he does something so offensive to those delegates that he's not openly able to make it.

O'KEEFE: And he'd better do it because we don't have to think about this. We know, based on results yesterday, that these seats are continuing to get packed with supporters of Ted Cruz. It happened in Utah, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, and South Carolina, again, where you will vote on the first ballot for Trump if you won your state. But if there's a second ballot, they can switch very quickly and vote for Cruz. And that may not get him the 1,237 on that second ballot, but it starts to make it nearly impossible for Trump to prevail.

CORDES: Although --

DICKERSON: This is the inside game --

O'KEEFE: Right.

DICKERSON: That Cruz has been winning, that Donald Trump is so irritated about.

CORDES: But it's looking less and less likely that this will even be something that plays out because if you look at our battleground tracker, Trump is winning in Pennsylvania, he's leading in Indiana, which was looking like a state where the candidates could kind of blunt his momentum. I mean if he stays on this trajectory, he can win the 1,237 outright and you don't get to a convention fight.

SALAM: You can't win a fear-based campaign against Donald Trump in the primaries. You can absolutely win a far-based campaign against him in the general election. And that is the fundamental dilemma. If you look at Sarah Palin, for example, running mates never matter, right? Except in 2008, a running mate did matter. She initially had enormous popularity. She seemed refreshing and new. But then suddenly people were questioning her judgment, they were questioning the fact that she was a heartbeat away from the presidency, and that was the one time when a running mate mattered.

This time around, it's simply a matter of his being erratic, his seeming unreliable, his willingness to change positions at any moment, that is just going to be such a slam dunk and just somehow Ted Cruz can't make that case. John Kasich can't (ph) make that case in the primaries.

DICKERSON: Ed, John Kasich's been trying to make that case. He met with some delegates. He wouldn't tell us how the meeting went.

O'KEEFE: That's right. And this was in Pennsylvania because you've got 54 people who get elected on Tuesday as delegates and don't officially have to declare their allegiance to Cruz and the Trump campaign is trying to get some elected that would vote for them. Kasich says he's done it and wouldn't name names. You know, he continues to make that argument he made to you that I can beat Hillary Clinton on -- in a general election. It doesn't seem to matter. I think we are seeing echoes of 1964, as you mentioned.

And, look, he'll stick around. He'll get his votes. He's there if someone needs a running mate, perhaps, or if they do need a late ballot option. But beyond that, I was stunned. You know, he's -- he could be running another gubernatorial style campaign this week in Pennsylvania, like he did up in New Hampshire and place second. He hasn't been doing it. He could be doing that in Indiana. He could -- he could have done it in Maryland. And over and over again we just see him bouncing around to all these different states, making a few appearances, instead of honing in on one or two places to actually get a win or pick up a big collection of delegates. He just hasn't done it.

DICKERSON: All right, we're going to have to leave it there. Thanks to all of you for joining us.

And that's it. There's more from us, though, so stay with us.


DICKERSON: And we're back with "New York Times" White House correspondent Mark Landler. He's got a new book out, "Alter Egos," and has written the cover story for "The New York Times" magazine today, "How Hillary Became a Hawk."

So, Mark, let's start right there. What is Hillary Clinton's foreign policy world view? Where does it fit in, where Obama has been, where others have been?

MARK LANDLER, "NEW YORK TIMES": Well, first of all I'd like to say, really the word to use would be, she's a textbook American exceptionalist. This phrase American exceptionalism gets thrown around a lot. She's someone who fervently believes that the U.S. has a positive role to play, that U.S. engagement is vital, that the military and the threat of military force is vital at times to press our national interest. And that puts her at odds with President Obama in a significant way. Not necessarily in the broadest strokes, but in some specific decisions having to do with intervention, Syria, Libya, places like that, you see her world view as really being in some stark contrast to his. And that's the relationship that really fascinated me in -- in this book.

DICKERSON: Is there -- it's a complicated world and there are many places, so it's tricky to ask this, but I'll do it anyway, is there one place, is it Syria or Libya, where you think those differences between the two of them, as people are evaluating her compared to the -- as compared to the sitting president, where they differ, an example that's the best one?

LANDLER: I think the brightest line was probably in Syria, where if you recall she was in favor of supplying arms to the moderate rebels back in 2012. And President Obama was initially reluctant. He came around and finally agreed to do it, but never with much enthusiasm. And he's, you know, held the line against intervention against Syria. During the campaign, Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of a no fly zone. President Obama is still against that. So I think that's probably the one area where you've seen it play out over the longest time where there's just, I think, simply is a different view. I think Hillary Clinton believes that a stronger American intervention would give the U.S. some leverage to change events on the ground. I think President Obama's just fundamentally skeptical that we can make a difference in -- in Syria. And so that's the one that I really drilled into as a major difference. DICKERSON: The term "indispensable nation" is associated with the Clinton. Is that what this is, that America is still the indispensable nation because the phrase that's gotten in the Obama years is -- I s that he talks about free riders, which is to say other nations are not doing their share. So is that indispensable --

LANDLER: Yes, I think that's exactly right. And "indispensable nation" was a phrase that Bill Clinton made popular. And -- and one of the things I do look into is to what extent Bill Clinton's experience as president and his world view filtered into what Hillary Clinton believes. And I think that's a very good example. I think with President Obama, on the other hand, I think what he is saying is, look, we need to define our interests a little bit more narrowly than perhaps we did in the heyday of the post-World War II period. We need to acknowledge that we can't be at the center of every single issue.

So you look at Ukraine, for example. I think Hillary Clinton, there again, would probably be inclined to be more forward leaning, maybe supplying defensive weapons to the Ukrainians, whereas the president is saying, look, they're not a vital national interest for us the way they are for the Russians. We need to be more cautious.

DICKERSON: Where does this come from, because people who cover Hillary Clinton as a candidate see her as being so cautious. And you write about her as constantly kind of monitoring her status in the role of places, but yet she is more forward-leaning, more aggressive in the use of military force. How do those two exist?

LANDLER: Well, it's interesting, and you raise an interesting paradox, because I think that on military force and on the use of the -- of the military and intervention, she is more risk ready, more forward leaning than the president. On diplomacy, interestingly enough, which is another major part of my book, she's actually much more cautious. I -- I argue, and I think that, you know, you can make a persuasive case that had she been elected in 2008 instead of President Obama, we might never have done the nuclear deal with Iran. That was a very difficult, risky deal. And she was very skeptical about it. He threw himself into it.

Likewise with Cuba. I think that one is a little more questionable. Perhaps she would have done Cuba. But again, the president took a major risk. So while he's cautious on the military side, he's actually a real risk taker on the diplomatic side.

DICKERSON: It's really interesting. You quote an aide to Stan McCrystal, the former commander leading American troops in -- in Iraq -- right, OK, sorry --

LANDLER: Afghanistan.

DICKERSON: In Afghanistan, sorry.

LANDLER: And Iraq. And Iraq, yes.

DICKERSON: And Iraq. But in -- on the Afghanistan question, this aide said that Hillary Clinton led to the over militarization of the debate. Is that what you're talking about there, where the -- where her view on military kind of overtakes the diplomacy?

LANDLER: Yes, I think that was a -- that -- that, though, may have been a unique set of circumstances where it was early in the administering. She was trying to sort of prove her relevance and her bonafides and so in that debate she really lined up so strongly behind Bob Gates, behind McCrystal, behind Petraeus, that I think she maybe lost an opportunity to make a stronger case for the diplomatic side of the equation. In Afghanistan, we needed to perhaps do more with Pakistan, perhaps do -- have more of a greater recognition of the Karzai government. And that was really the role she could have played in that debate. I would argue she didn't as much as she could have.

DICKERSON: Last 20 seconds. Where would you expect Hillary Clinton to turn first if she were president?

LANDLER: Well, I'd be very interested to see whether she finally did try to tackle Syria in a more aggressive way than the president. I'd also be very interested to see what she does with Vladimir Putin. She's sort of been much more skeptical for a longer period of time about the intentions of the Russians. I'd love to see what she did with him, not just in Syria, but the Ukraine.

DICKERSON: All right, Mark Landler, thanks so much for this fascinating look.

LANDLER: Thanks, John.

DICKERSON: The book is "Alter Ego." Thanks for being with us. And we'll be back in a moment.


DICKERSON: That's it for us today. Thanks for watching. Until next week, for FACE THE NATION, I'm John Dickerson.



View CBS News In
CBS News App Open
Chrome Safari Continue
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.