tv NBC Bay Area News Special NBC June 4, 2016 6:30pm-7:01pm PDT
now, can he deliver on his promise to take over the white house as he closes the gap with hillary clinton? and-- jay lund: the el niño was touted as being, bringing us a lot more water than it actually brought this year. sam: california's famished farmland and thirsty reservoirs have recouped some rain. but are we loosening the reigns on restrictions before counting every last drop? we'll flush out the claims and filter through the facts, next on "reality check." sam: and good evening, and welcome to this special edition of "reality check." i'm sam brock. for the next 30 minutes we're gonna take you behind the latest headlines and punchy political claims to separate the truth from the bunk. and we start tonight on the campaign trail with one of donald trump's most tried and true proclamations, that he's self-funding his campaign. the real estate mogul turned presumptive gop nominee says he's been bankrolling his operations from the very
beginning, which is where we start our fact check of his financials. donald: i know the best people, and i'm totally self-funding my campaign. sam: it's a personal point of pride. donald: i'm the only one that's self-funding my campaign. sam: and it's part of his pitch to voters. donald: i'm not taking money from wall street. i'm not taking money from anybody. sam: donald trump keeps rolling out the same claim, a claim that hbo comedian john oliver vetted on his show "last week tonight." john oliver: the implication that he has personally spent $20 to $25 million is a bit of a stretch, because what he's actually done is loaned his own campaign $17 and 1/2 million. sam: oliver kick started a conversation that we'll now pick up. because the question remains, how would trump get that money back? daniel newman: and if you click on "candidate loans," you can see the list of the specific loans-- sam: maplight co-founder daniel newman highlights the 17.5 million in trump loans listed clear as day
on the fec website. he says trump has the right to recoup those loans from any number of sources, but the sources could remain mysterious for months. daniel: from a public interest point of view, the public deserves to know who's funding our candidates so they can make informed judgment about who to support based on that information. this is a big problem for the public 'cause we all are in the dark about who is ultimately going to be paying back mr. trump's loans. sam: but we can narrow down the options after we looked into federal election law. and there are a lot of numbers here, so bear with us. political parties can only donate a total of $10,000 directly to a candidate during an election cycle. and after the election, fec law puts the clamps down, limiting candidates to just $250,000 for loan relief. add it all up, and the republican party cannot directly bail out donald trump. donald: iowa, we love you. sam: and you know what?
regular donors probably won't bail him out either. according to opensecrets, a maplight partner, total contributions from any one not named donald trump to the donald trump campaign are a modest $7.5 million. unless the real estate mogul breaks mould and backs up that red "donate" button on his website with actual fundraising events, it seems farfetched that donors could cover all his debts. donald: i feel a little bit foolish. people are offering me millions and millions of dollars. sam: and super pacs, and so-called social welfare groups, can't give those millions directly to donald trump. that's against federal law. but they can only spend on his behalf, leaving the donald's options limited. sam: now, when we first aired this story in march, donald trump had shelled out $17 million of his own money. the latest filings show that number is up to $43 and 1/2 million. but trump is still only getting about a quarter of his campaign cash from individual donors, making it even less likely that
the rnc could intervene, dip into its piggybank, and bail out donald trump. the reality is that donald is likely telling the truth. he'll be on the hook for a lot of money. his campaign did not return multiple requests for comment. we move now to the candidate who says he wants to see less money in politics, bernie sanders. the vermont senator is still trying to shore up delegates ahead of the convention, and he's pitching voters across the country on closing the income gap and boosting wages for everybody. but interestingly, sanders has lost the states with the widest income gaps. his explanation? that, quote, "poor people don't vote." we go behind the numbers to see if that claim is true. bernie sanders: this type of rigged economy is not what america is supposed to be about. sam: it's no mystery that the hallmark of bernie sanders' campaign for president is tackling the issue of income inequality. so you might be a little surprised to find out that of
the 25 states with the widest income gaps, 22 have held primaries or caucuses so far, and 19 of them have voted for hillary clinton. how could that be? chuck todd asked sanders about it on "meet the press." bernie: well, because poor people don't vote. i mean, that's just a fact. in the last election, in 2014, 80% of poor people did not vote. sam: and it is a fact. poorer people vote in lower numbers. sanders is absolutely correct. just check out the census data for the 2014 election. households at or below the federal poverty line, about $30,000 a year, voted 31% of the time. now, watch what happens when you rise into higher income brackets. the voting rate shoots up considerably at each level, topping out at 56% for those earning $150,000 or more. bernie: to send a message to the billionaire class. sam: but here's what sanders isn't telling you. the 2014 midterm elections had really low turnout.
you have to go back to 1942, the world war ii era, to find a midterm election with a lower voting rate. it was a shade under 34% that year, and 36% in 2014, the year sanders is using to make his case. sam: and the point here is that everyone voted in lower numbers in 2014. the average turnout and the poor turnout were almost the exact same. they were separated by a few percentage points. now, it is true. wealthier people do vote more than everyone else. but it's hard to see how that explains sanders losing 19 out of those 22 states. from the income gap to the rain gap, california has been trying to make up a deficit after 4 brutal years of drought. now, a few weeks ago, the state ended its 25% water reduction mandate, telling local agencies, "it's up to you to manage conservation." does that mean that the much-hyped el niño season delivered for the bay area?
right now let's take a closer look at the drought map. the darker colors on this map denote more serious conditions, and it's really a tale of two different californias. the southern and the central parts of the state are still in extreme or exceptional drought after a very underwhelming rain season there. not so for us in northern california. we've actually started to claw our way back. for the 2016 water year, which is almost over, downtown san francisco collected a tick under 23 inches of rain, or slightly more than the historical avera. now, the downtown la area, by comparison, scooped up less than 7 inches of rain, or about half of its historical average. since most of the state's reservoirs are in northern california, we're actually okay to loosen restrictions for now. jay: this year is obviously wetter than the last couple of years, so we should ease off a little bit, i think. this is california. it's a dry state. we're always gonna have water problems, either too much or too little.
and so we're always at risk that next year could be dry, or that next year could be a flood. sam: here's a little more context now. our reservoirs here are built to hold an average year's worth of rainwater. so some of them are actually spilling over right now. so it does make sense to return to normal water habits, with the understanding that a dry year in 2017 could bring us right back to square 1. all right, now, we're just getting started. back to that upcoming election. trump: you know, you had our president saying, "he will not be the nominee of his party." oh, really? he's been right about that like he's right about everything else, which is never. sam: the rise of trump. now that he's sealed the deal, does he care about stitching up the republican party? or is that merely lip service? we sit down with hoover fellow, bill whalen, an expert on us elections. plus, we're all waiting for the big one to strike in california. but can an earthquake at home trigger a tsunami on our shores? it's time to clarify legitimate risk from decades-old legends.
we are on the heels of the primary election here in california. and for a while, it looked like our state was going to decide donald trump's fate. but in the last few weeks, trump has steamrolled his way toward the republican nomination. trump: well, thank you very much, everybody. the folks behind me got us right over the top. look, if i didn't win by massive majorities, i wouldn't be standing here talking to you today. i mean, you know, i knocked out every opponent. when you, you have to knock out. sam: well, trump has also knocked out some pretty bold claims during the primary season. here's one. he's going to unify a fractured gop. joining me right now to discuss the rise of trump is bill whalen, a research fellow at the hoover institution at stanford. bill, thanks so much for joining us. bill whalen: my pleasure. sam: so, a lot to talk about here, and let's start with the very basics. is there any way at all that donald trump, now that he's got the delegates, does not end up as the republican nominee?
bill: a meteor could hit the planet. trump could go for a stroll in central park, come down with amnesia, and disappear. but no, he's got the nomination in hand. he's over the top, and he's on his way. sam: he's the guy. bill: he's the guy. sam: so now that we know that he's the guy, he's trying to, he says, unite the republican party. bill: right. sam: those are his words. his actions are telling a different story as he's still bashing major republican figures on the campaign trail. so which is it? does he want to bring the party together, or does he just say he wants to? bill: i think he wants the party to come together behind him. but here's the catch. mitt romney got about 92% of the republican vote in 2012 and still managed to lose to barack obama. trump needs at least as many republicans, if not more, to make it a competitive election. and right now he's at about 70% in the polls with republicans. he has to build on that extra 20%. how does he do that? he hopes maybe republicans come on board naturally because they don't like hillary clinton, or he has to reach out to them. and here's the problem. every time we think he's gonna reach out, he pulls back the olive branch or does something to upset republicans. he takes a swipe at susana martinez, the governor of new
mexico, or some other elected official. it makes you think, "my goodness, is he really serious about party unity?" sam: is it fair to say that diplomacy is not part of his personality, and it might hurt him at the polls? bill: his middle initial is j, not t for tact. so, now, a diplomat he is not. and it does raise the question though of what his strategy is for winning the election. because if you go back to 2012, sam, mitt romney lost because he made some mistakes. he had the unfortunate remark about the 47% self-deportation, the clark griswold moment where he put the dog on the roof of the car, just little things like that. but he lost because of numbers. he got 92% of 32% of republicans who turned out in the general election. barack obama got 92% of democrats who turned out, which was 38%. so for trump to win this election, he needs a larger share of independent votes, he needs fewer democrats to vote, and he needs a larger republican portion in the electorate, which means a bigger republican turnout and him getting the same healthy share of republicans. and right now he's not there. sam: okay, let's switch it over now to the democratic side of things, and bernie sanders, who's still campaigning hard
right now, trying to get as many delegates as he can in california. and it's driving some members of the party nuts because they say, "you don't have a chance. but what you are doing is costing hillary clinton momentum." is that fair, or can bernie sanders actually compete and get the nomination? bill: he can't get the nomination. before the polls closed in california on tuesday, hillary will already be over the top based on winning new jersey. so the game is over. here's the frustration for democrats. they want bernie to come on board. they want peace to be struck within the family. and the problem is this. it's not just bernie is running. bernie is now a movement. bernie is an icon. if you got on his campaign website, you see what? you see the little logo of the hair and the glasses and all that. he's become a brand. and i suspect he's also on some levels rather full of himself right now. so this is why california is so important to the democratic race. she doesn't need it to win, but she does need it just to take wind out of his sails and make him more willing to come to the table and negotiate. sam: so, mathematically, he can't win you don't think. but let me push back for a second and say that his camp would tell you, "well, what we're trying to do is get close
enough where we can make a compelling case to the so-called super delegates to jump on over to our side." that couldn't happen? bill: not gonna happen. she already has over 500 super delegates in the bag. there are over 700-plus super delegates. four hundred or so of them would haveo switch to him, and it's just not gonna happen. sam: at one point in california, hillary clinton was polling 18 points ahead of sanders according to the public policy institute of california. now that's shrunk to 2%. what does that tell us about the status of their race right now? bill: it tells us that we really shouldn't be looking at polls, necessarily. our hoover institution poll, which came out on tuesday, has her up by 13 points. there are a lot of things we don't know about this turnout. and that's the key word here, "turnout." if you look at where democrats are right now, about 220,000 extra people have signed up to vote for this election. we don't know if they're gonna come out in force or not. we don't know how many have already voted. and we don't know what's gonna happen on tuesday itself. for sanders to carry california, sam, he has to do best with voters under the age of 30, especially high school and college-age voters. well, june the 7th is a very tough time to
get college kids to vote. why? some of them are already out of school, and who knows where they are. others, if they're in the ucs, are taking exams. and they just might forget about the election. so he has to really organize and run the state. and organization is not his strength. he's great at rallies. he's great at, you know, message, and momentum. but in terms of the nuts and bolts of campaigning, you know, we'll see on tuesday if he can deliver. sam: bill, one last question for you. are there any other races in the california primary, perhaps the us senate seat, that people really need to pay close attention to? bill: so we have had, since voters approved proposition 14 in 2010, we've had an open primary law, but it's not really been much of a factor in the races in 2012 and 2014. but in 2016, there's a very good likelihood it's gonna deliver two democrats to the fall election, attorney general kamala harris, and congresswoman loretta sanchez. so it will be interesting to see how californians feel about having two people from the same party on the fall ballot. i can tell you on our hoover poll, for example, when we asked voters, "how do you feel about it, sending two democrats?" they were okay with the idea. when you said, "how do you feel about two republicans?" not so much in love with the open primary, so that's an interesting race to look in that regard. sam: it has been a wacky political season so far. it'll be interesting to see what we're talkin' about a few
weeks from now, the next time we sit down. bill, thank you very much. from the hoover institution, bill whalen, appreciate you takin' the time. bill: my pleasure. sam: all right, comin' up next now, more reality to check, especially when it comes to our perception of seismic activity in the bay area. across the world, it was a worst-case scenario, an earthquake and a tsunami in 2011. could a major earthquake here, in the bay area, send a massive tsunami to our shores? we look at the role that geography plays in determining that risk. [music]
i've helped customers like plantronics meet their energy efficiency goals. so you save energy and you can save money. energy efficiency and the environment go hand in hand. and i love how pg&e's commitment to the environment helps a community like santa cruz be a better place to live. and being able to pass that along to my family is really important to me. just being together and appreciating what we have right here in santa cruz. see how you can save energy at pge.com. together, we're building a better california. earthquakes and tsunamis, all of us here in the bay area are gearing up for the big one to hit. scientists say it's likely we're going to experience a major earthquake at some point in the next 30 years. but a tsunami barreling toward our coastline? that sort of catastrophe would almost certainly have to originate from somewhere else in the world. and here's why. sam: even years later, these images from japan
defy comprehension. it's a heart-stopping phenomenon. one word, three syllables, and universally understood, "tsunami." brian garcia: so tsunamis have a very long wavelength. so they start off, and then they just keep comin'. it's like a river. sam: a river of rushing water triggered by an earthquake. and it can travel thousands of miles right to our coastline. we talked to an expert at the national weather service, and a research geophysicist at uc santa cruz to reality check tsunami risk in the bay area. understanding that risk starts with understanding fault lines. for california, there are two relevant types, according to uc santa cruz professor, dr. steve ward. strike-slip faults-- dr. steven ward: they can slide by each other. sam: and subduction zones. steve: well, they can smash into each other, like this. and it's the smashing kind that usually are most effective for making tsunamis. sam: despite what you might have seen in movies, like "san
andreas," california's signature fault of the same name is a strike-slip fault. the land moves side to side, and no water is displaced. brian: the san andreas fault cannot trigger a tsunami, just by its nature of the type of fault it is. sam: but meteorologist brian garcia says shaking can lead to landslides below or above water that might cause a local tsunami. that event is very rare. more likely, an earthquake off the coast of japan or alaska sets off a chain reaction. when a fault line erupts in the ocean, one plate goes under the other, pushing up water and sending waves sprawling. they reached our shores after the 2011 tsunami in japan, tearing up ships in the santa cruz harbor. but the damage was relatively contained, and there were no deaths, because we had ample time to prepare. steve: the tsunami in japan took about 14 hours to get to here. so we had a half a day and more.
sam: now, just a second ago, you saw people standing in the santa cruz harbor because the waves were only a few feet high. but an earthquake from alaska might trigger a much more powerful tsunami that would only take about 5 hours to get here. that's because of topography. coming up next, we're gonna show you a simulation of a tsunami on target for the bay area. brian: the pacific ocean, as a whole, kinda acts like a bathtub in a tsunami. so it'll slosh the water back and forth. sam: we trace how the shape of the earth underwater impacts our local tsunami risk, making a few particular fault lines flashlights for beaming waves right at us.
when we explored the depths of why, we found out that underwater grooves literally direct waves down certain pathways, some of which lead to the bay area. brian: so the pacific ocean, as a whole, kinda acts like a bathtub in a tsunami. so it'll slosh the water back and forth. sam: fears of a tsunami rocking our backyard after an earthquake across the globe are frequently discussed. but the facts frame a different reality. brian garcia, with the national weather service, says the shape of the earth underwater plays a big role. brian: they can actually steer these tsunami waves into certain regions. so we can get impacts from those areas. sam: a string of earthquakes struck ecuador in recent weeks, but the energy generally gets directed to central america, not california. steve: and i call it, "the flashlight beam." sam: dr. steve ward has mapped out all the scenarios, and presents another way to think about this. steve: you have a flashlight. most of the energy goes forward.
not much goes this way. same thing with tsunamis. much of the energy goes in a particular direction. so if you're on the flashlight beam, you're gonna get wet. if you're not on the flashlight beam, you'll probably be safe. sam: so what flashlight beam is the bay area on? the closest concern is alaska, right by the aleutian islands. if that fault ruptures, here's an animation of what it might look like. the water is displaced at the source, and then it comes down the canadian coast by vancouver, and then proceeds to saturate the pacific northwest before settling in the bay area. the water might even pierce the bay by the golden gate bridge, but the tsunami shouldn't do much more damage from there. brian: could it be big enough to get in the bay? it'll get in the bay, to a degree. but it's not gonna have any sort of impact, especially north, south bay. directly across from the entrance through under the golden gate, they could have some impacts. sam: aside from alaska, activity by chile and japan are the other likely pathways to a tsunami reaching our shores.
but scientists say the overall risk of a damaging tsunami in the bay area is still very low. sam: now, that's the big picture for the bay area tsunami risk. but we can go more granular too. do you wanna find out the tsunami risk in your neighborhood? we've put a link to the "know your zone area," which you can find on nbcbayarea.com/realitycheck. and while you're there, you can find more "reality check" stories. you have a claim you'd like us to fact check? just send us a tip by emailing email@example.com. also, don't forget to check out nbc bay area news at 6 o'clock to see our regular "reality check" segments. and you can start your day with me, laura, kari, and mike on "today in the bay" every weekday morning starting very early at 4:30 and going to 7 o'clock. that's gonna do it for tonight's special edition of "reality check." thanks for watching. we'll see ya again next time. have a great night. [music]
summer spectacular with movie action. behind the scenes of alice through the looking glass, and talk abs with zac efron. we start with the movie that has so many big name stars it has its own squad, the suicide squad. >> this team is ridiculous. from david err, all the way through every single member of this group. for me to be in annen sellable like this, my firsten sellable piece in a long time. >> don't forget -- we're the bad guys. >> they are the worst of the worst played by the best of the best. will smith as dead shot, margo robbie, and enchantress and jared leto as the joker. >> are you sweet talking me? all that chitchat is going t got you hurt. >> bring together the rogues gallery of supervillains to save the world in