that's "hardball" for now. "all in with chris hayes" starts right now. tonight on "all in" -- >> everything about donald trump's campaign it's avant-garde. >> republicans play follow the leader. >> we want to build a wall north of the border. >> some have asked us that in new hampshire. >> as they follow trump further to the right on immigration, will they sign on to his plan to raise taxes? >> some of the hedge fund guys are making a lot of money and paying little taxes. >> hillary picks up a major endorsement in new hampshire. and martin o'malley makes loud noise. >> this sort of rigged process has never been attempted before. we'll have both sides of the democratic debate tonight. and the president goes to the frontline of the fight against climate change.

our first look at obama in alaska when "all in" starts right now. good evening from new york. i'm chris hayes. the republican presidential field has found the perfect slogan for 2016 courtesy of its current front-runner. forget love, it's time to get tough. that line is the centerpiece of a wildly inflammatory video donald trump released on instagram attacking jeb bush for bush's stance on immigration. >> yes, they broke the law, but it's not a felony. it's kind of -- it's an act of love. >> repeats what's become a central theme of the trump campaign, the idea of the inherent criminality of undocumented immigrants, hispanics in particular, that draws on anti-immigrant rhetoric from the nativist right. that is contradicted by most of the hard evidence we have that shows that they have a lower crime rate.

that means if you swapped out the 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country, replace them with 11 people born here, you'd probably end up with a higher crime rate. that said trump's new ad with its racialized fear mongering is drawing comparisons to the infamous willie horton ad run against michael dukakis, perhaps the most notorious attack ad in the history of politics, created by a group supporting none other than george bush, father. no surprises, continues to astound how quickly and transparently the rest of the candidates are falling over themselves to keep up with him. we saw it with jeb bush's partial, tentative, occasional embrace of the term anchor baby and now this weekend with scott walker talking about building a wall on the border with canada. >> we don't talk about a northern border where if this is

about securing the border from potentially terrorists coming over. we want to build a wall north of the border? >> that was brought up in new hampshire. that was a legitimate issue to look at. >> someone on twitter commenting i want trump to start claiming things like he's eaten 1,000 bees in his life so we can see scott walker try to eat bees. and chris christie this weekend comparing foreign visitors to fedex packages. >> at any moment fedex can tell you where that package is. it's on the truck. it's at the station. it's on the airplane. it's back at another station. it's back on the truck. it's at our doorstep. she just signed for it. yet we let people come into this country with visas and the minute they come in, we lose track of them. >> bobby jindal escalating his call for the designation indian american among others to be

retired. >> i think we need to move away from hyphenated americans. we're not rich or poor american, we're all americans and the reason this is so important immigration without integration is not immigration, it's invasion. >> while the republican field is content to follow trump's lead on immigration the one place the party apparently will not go is raising taxes on the rich. "the new york times" reports today republicans are extremely wary of trump's populist tone on that issue. he has declined to sign the famous grover norquist pledge not to raise taxes that basically all republican candidates signed and sounded almost like bernie sanders in a recent interview with sarah palin. >> some of these people like the hedge fund guys are making a lot of money and paying little tax. it's unfair to the middle class. wove to create a new -- we have to help the middle class. as you know better than anyone, the country is based on the middle class. they had so much to do with what

we all have now and they are being treated horribly. >> joining me now david k. johnson, a columnist and author of numerous books about the tax code. well, i find the trepidation on the part of the other republican candidates in the field and the republican establishment about this fascinating because one thing we know is that poll after poll raising taxes on the rich is pretty popular. >> well, yes, but they're not appealing to the mass of voters, they're appealing to the donor class. that's what you're seeing here with things like trump's fantasy plan that will have a 1% tax rate at the bottom. it's not worth the coin to collect a 1% tax. and this is just the tax fairy that is the logical outgrowth of grover norquist's long ago pledge that so many republicans bought into and are now stuck with.

>> well, that's what's been interesting to me that trump refuses to sign the pledge and this hedge fund loophole, which maybe you can explain a little bit. there's a specific loophole called the carried interest loophole, trump appears to be talking about. it's been there for folks for a long time. it's had its defenders among chuck schumer and other democrats who stuck up for it. what is the loophole that he's talking about? >> the one he's talking about carrying interest basically the compensation you earn for the work you do as an investment manager isn't taxed at the same rates you and i pay for our paychecks. it's taxed at the much lower rates for capital investments. but the bigger scandal there is despite a reform law by congress that doesn't appear to be working, hedge fund managers can live by borrowing against their assets and, therefore, they don't recognize the income. they can defer the income into their fund, pay no taxes, and have them continue to grow and live on borrowed money.

you and i can't do that. if you have a billion dollars you can easily do that. >> here is the perfect thing to me. it is a natural populous issue. >> you that would have appeal, these finance hedge fund guys are giving money to democrats anyway. they look down their noses at you. they're not like you and me, says donald trump, and we should raise taxes on them. that is a perfectly wide open political issue to drive a truck through that because of the donor class republicans just won't take that bait. >> well, the real underlying problem, chris, is that we have a tax system designed for the middle of the last century. that's why i'm writing a new tax coat that would completely change this and have a 21st century tax system, but the republicans through the grover norquist pledge and the anti-tax rhetoric locked themselves into a position where trump is the only one as a rogue out there who is willing to talk about the fact that our system is fundamentally broken. it's unfair.

it allows some very wealthy people to pay literally no tax or very little tax while a single worker who makes about $80,000 a year works all of monday just for uncle sam. >> and this -- it's amazing to me how little traction this is able to get in presidential -- in republican politics because of the donor class but, also, you've got a situation where the anti-tax politics of the republicans came up with that were very successful for them particularly in the 19 80s under reagan happened at a time of higher marginal rates. at a certain point you can't keep running on tack cuts winning, getting taxes cut, and expect there to be the same enthusiasm for your tax cutting agenda election after election. >> well, at some point man up and pay your taxes. the capital rate is 20%. that's not an outrageous rate to pay by i think almost anyone's definition unless you don't want

to have the united states with our liberties and our military and all the other benefits we get from living in this country but that's where trump, i think, is doing a good thing as critical as i've been of him. i'm glad he's pushing the republicans to address this and hopefully they will react in a better way than they have on the wall and now the proposed wall in canada where instead of talking to americans as the land of the brave they talk to us as the land of the fearful. >> yeah. i think we can take a little tough talk on the carry the interest loophole. a gallup poll, too much 11%. fair share 25%. that's what the populace says. joined now by tim carney, senior political columnist, tim, you've been one of the most honest and dogged chroniclers of the ways in which the republican establishment can deviate from some of its own sworn ideological commitments in terms

of smalley government and anti-croneyism. >> on the carried interest question, i do think it's some place when you look at policy people, i do a fellowship at aei and half my colleagues agree there should be a way capital and labor income are taxed the same. when dave camp, the republican chairman, proposed a tax reform, he talked about closing the carried interest loophole. the problem when they talk about this, all of a sudden you get the left, the democrats excited. this is a tax hike. this is a tax hike. more revenue. when camp was pushing, we're going to cut taxes in some places and then get rid of loopholes in others and that's not a place that ends up getting any bipartisan support because in both parties the special interests have so much sway that the loopholes have more political clout than the idea of lower rates.

>> that is definitely true. i think that in some ways you get a situation here where there's political hay to be made. there's a fairness argument being made by trump and it's the kind of argument that is pretty anathema. the money we're talking about is pretty small. it's not going to plug any huge deficits. it's not going to pay for a new social program on the government balance sheet it's pretty small. it's fundamental argument about fairness. and i do wonder whether from your perspective as a dyed in the wool conservative, someone who spends his time around conservatives, whether there's any traction there in the base or not. >> well, i'll answer the broader question which you were referring to earlier about sort of wall street. do they get special benefits that upsets conservatives? and the answer is yes. i don't know if the answer was yes before september or october of 2008 when you had george bush with the help of barack obama and nancy pelosi push through the bailouts, but nowadays there

is this question are these wall streeters getting special benefits? are all of chuck schumer's friends getting benefits? >> he has best friends who are not just wall streeters. >> but labor and capital both make -- are both sources of generation of value. things come out of working or investing. we need both of them. that capital investment should be privileged over labor is dubious. on the other hand you have the complication there is a corporate income tax, that you have all these other things, and so a broader tax reform that would equalize these things, what makes it impossible is all the special interests in washington. if you say i will cut your rates and get rid of the loopholes, every special interest lobbyist almost will say no even though that increases the general welfare of the u.s. economy. >> let me ask you a question, a personal question, sort of, tim. you're a religious person, a

person of faith, you believe deeply. and i wonder -- and you're connected to folks who also have deep religion faith. what do you make of donald trump about faith? it strikes me and i'm not really in a position to judge anyone's interior life, but it seems preposterously put on to me. you as someone who is in a better position, how does it strike you? >> i'm not comfortable judging people's faith. his comments about the bible seemed like a very surface understanding. it reminded me howard dean saying that jobe was his favorite book. we get criticized for not knowing the bible well enough. we spend too much time reading the catechism. politicians use their faith as a cover story. if donald trump comes across as another, it's in his heart, it's in his soul, i'm not going to say what's going on there. i wish politicians didn't drag

it out and use it as a cover story but on the other hand i don't know what's in donald trump's heart. >> that's an honest and respectful answer. tim carney, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> still ahead, as bernie sanders closes the gap, the hillary clinton campaign brings out the big guns. i'll talk with the senator about her decision and its timing plus president obama brings climate change on his visit to the alaskan arctic. an already historic hurricane season, three separate hurricanes simultaneously race threw the pacific. those stories and more ahead.

in ohio we named the mountain after the president. no reason to change it. >> presidential hopeful and governor of ohio john kasich crying foul after president obama renamed mt. mckinley.

it was renamed after -- well, originally officially named after ohioan william mckinley by a gold prospector who admired the then candidate support for the gold standard which was just incidentally a terrible idea. president mckinley never visited alaska and they have long called it denali and have sought to have its official name changed. for decades, a below the surface proxy war, the delegation has fought off attempts to take mckinley's name off the peak by the alaskan delegation. until now, president obama, issuing an executive order returning it to its native name, denali. and while alaskan senator thanked the president for the decision, ohio senator rob portman blasted it as another example of the president going around congress. speaker of the house john boehner who represents ohio said he was deeply disappointed in this decision. all of this as the president makes his very first visit to alaska to highlight the effects

of climate change even as he faces intense criticism for drilling off the alaskan coast. i will ask his press secretary about that ahead. e dishes are c. i just gotta scrape the rest of the food off them. ew. dish issues? cascade platinum powers through this brownie mess better than the competition, the first time. cascade.

in the democratic primary battle contest hillary clinton and bernie sanders, between the two, have already been certain benchmarks along the way. bernie sanders has been drawing the biggest crowds from the beginning. the question was, what does that mean in terms of actual support? after all ron paul used to draw big crowds without it ever really showing up very strongly in actual polling. now sanders has been surging there as well. first polling within striking

distance in the polls in new hampshire and then actually ahead in the granite state. the response of sanders' skeptics, well, he's the senator from vermont. it's just next door. a strong showing is to be expected. if iowa hillary clinton is up by 30 points. yes, she used to be. but now in the latest "des moines register" poll sanders is pulling nearly even with clinton in iowa. once you factor in the nearly 5% margin of error, other polls still show her with a sizable lead. so at some point you have to say whatever the predictive value of polling right now, at this moment bernie sanders is running a heck of a campaign and he is clearly competitive with hillary clinton and that probably explains some of the decisions the clinton campaign has made to remind everyone just how formidable their operation is, and it is formidable, including her campaign's recent claim clinton has secured one-fifth of the total delegates she needs from super delegates pledging their support. and this weekend we learned that a key high-profile endorsement

will be made publicly next saturday by jeanne shaheen of new hampshire. earlier today i spoke with senator shaheen and asked her why she decided to make this endorsement now. >> i actually was one of most of the democratic senate who urged hillary clinton to run i think almost two years ago now. and so i have been clear that i was going to do everything i could to help her get elected once she got into the race. i'm very excited she's in the race. i'm going to keep working hard. new hampshire is obviously an important state, one where she has a lot of support based on the 2008 race. so i'm -- this was not a secret as far as i was concerned. >> so here's one way people will interpret the timing. they will interpret the timing in the following way that there is polling showing bernie sanders leading perhaps new hampshire. new polling showing him very close in iowa. the clinton campaign's announcement of the super delegates they locked up as a kind of shot across the bow to the possible engines of joe

biden, to other competitors in the race saying this is a formidable campaign. we have the home state senator of the first in the nation primary. people will interpret this as a kind of muscle flexing. are you comfortable with that interpretation? >> people are going to interpret all kind of things between now and the actual primary season. you know, polls are going to go up and down. you all who are the analysts are going to find all kinds of reasons for why people do things, but the fact is we're getting into the fall now, the campaign season is going to heat up, and so it's a great time to be out there doing what i can to help hillary get elected. >> you know, i'm curious. your read with respect to immigration, you survived in a dismal year for democrats. you were one of the very few bright spots in last year's election. it was a tough fought race. what is your sense about your

home state voters, what they are looking for and whether it is speaking to some of the constituents you have in new hampshire. >> well, i think there's a lot of frustration out there among the electorate. the language used around immigration spokes to that frustration. i believe we need comprehensive immigration reform. we have a system that's broken. that was the bipartisan position of the senate. we passed a bill, unfortunately the house never took it up and so it didn't go anywhere. we need to address this in a real comprehensive way and the extreme rhetoric around this issue has not fixed the problem. it's not going to fix the problem. we need to address it on all levels. border security, making sure that we can get immigrants who are here who are working hard to make sure that they can pay their taxes, that they learn

english, that they get in line behind those people here legally, and really fix the problem and, unfortunately, the rhetoric is not going to do that. >> there's been a lot of talk recently -- there was a big article that interviewed a number of democratic politicians and officials about the on going story about secretary of state clinton's e-mail server which has entered this kind of endless universe of scandal and i'm putting air quotes as of now. there are people he can pressing their frustration with her campaign's handling of it. what is your response to them? >> you know, i've known hillary clinton for a very long time, even before bill clinton started running for president and before she became first lady. i served as governor during the clinton administration. i worked with her when she was a senator. i worked with her as secretary

of state. i trust hillary clinton. i believe she is the most experienced person best able to do the job as president. that's why i'm supporting her and, again, i think we're going to see a lot of partisan attacks. we're going to see a lot of accusations go back and forth, but i want to elect the person who i think is most capable of doing the job as president, and that's why i'm supporting hillary. >> but just to follow up, some of these attacks on the handling aren't partisan in the sense they are coming from fellow democrats. >> well, again, i've been a democrat for a long time and i can tell you that sometimes my biggest critics are members of my own party, so people are always going to criticize. you can't please everybody. i think she needs to continue to work hard. she needs to point out why she's different than her opponents, what she thinks we need to do in

this country to make sure the middle class has opportunities again to make sure we invest in our infrastructure and our education and the people of this country so that we can grow the economy and stay competitive. and that's the case that she's going to be making to the american people. >> all right. senator jeanne shaheen, i appreciate you taking the time. thank you. up next, president obama continues to push for support for his iran deal. this time sitting down with the jewish press. we'll bring you that interview ahead.

the ongoing battle over the iran deal, a heightened focus on jewish lawmakers and leaders. president obama sat down with a member of the jewish media since becoming president in 2008. president obama made the case for the iran deal while shamelessly pandering to a certain upper west side demographic by lamenting the loss of bagels. editor in chief jane eisner. why do you think you got this interview? >> i think the president really wants to talk to our leaders. obviously wanted to engage on the fraught tensions between him and the netanyahu administration. this has been a difficult time this iran deal has really divided a lot of people, not just lawmakers. it was a chance to ask him as well about the deal.

the focus on jewish leaders with respect to the iran deal. driven marginally by the riff grown up between israel and the u.s. but also feels to me a little uncomfortably close to the kabul of power wielders. i think the unprecedented talk that netanyahu give to congress about the iran deal, set up a fight and put a lot of jews in a really awkward situation. people want to support the israeli government. most israeli leaders have voiced opposition to the deal. i think there's a natural

tendency among american jews to pay attention to what goes on in israel and at least consider what israelis themselves say about their own security, so that was a persuasive kind of statement. on the other hand most jews here still are democratic, very supportive of this president and probably much more desirous of having a diplomatic solution rather than anything else in iran. it really created this push and pull and i think some of it is because the jewish community you find is vocal about this than other people. it feels very close. iran hasn't been shy about saying what it thinks. >> particularly ahmadinejad. >> we can't say that the current leader has said nasty things about jews and about israel. so it does feel closer to home, i think, for american jews than

perhaps for others. >> what was the debate like over carter's camp david and was that tension similarly fraught when that big peace deal was struck? >> i don't think so because there you had a democratic president aligned with the government of israel. here you have a democratic president who is at odds with the leader. >> very public and at times bitter and intense way. >> and to me that's what's so disturbing and fascinating about what's going on now when you've had other disputes between american administrations and israeli governments, and there have been. >> very back channel. very off the front page. >> it's when republicans have been in the white house. now you have democrats there. >> poppyseed bagel with a smear was his favorite bagel. >> it is. he said he doesn't mind but goes just for the smear.

>> thank you very much. coming up, president obama becoming the first sitting president to visit the alaskan arctic as he deals with climate change.

today president obama embarked on the first leg of a historic three-day trip to alaska. he'll become the first u.s. president to go north of the arctic circle and call for dramatic action on climate change from the part of the world where its effects are the most readily visible and alarming. >> this year we had no snow. we had 80-degree summer. we've just really watched the glaciers change and dramatic changes. >> reporter: scientists say this year alone the average glacier will lose 30 inches of thickness. >> there's about 25,000 glaciers in alaska and almost all of them are retreating, losing mass, and shrinking. >> consequences of rapidly melting glaciers across the arctic will have profound environmental consequences but

diplomatic ones as well as the president presses policymakers, the u.s. prepares for a future diplomatic dispute over oil dripping and shipping rights through contested arctic territories. disputes over the arctic are not just happening in contested territory, they're happening in alaska as well. the president's trip, tried to focus on climate change, comes just after the white house gave approval for additional oil drilling in the state. >> i think it is hypocrisy. >> the administration gave the final okay to shell to drill for oil off the northwest coast while fossil fuels are partly to blame for climate change. >> for somebody like president obama who presumably understands the science and the numbers, it's effectively like drill, baby, drill. >> joining me now from anchorage, alaska, is josh earnest who is traveling with the president. josh, the main line i've heard from folks in the climate

movement, environmentalists, environmental scientists about this trip is it's great he's going there. he's great he's drawing attention. it is hypocritical for this president to approve drilling in the arctic, which is something that is going to facilitate further climate change and go to the arctic and talk about the need to bring dramatic things to stop climate change. how do you respond? >> chris, i respond by saying the president takes a pragmatic approach. this president has made a historic commitment on behalf of this country to transition us to a low carbon, clean energy economy. and whether it's the clean power plan rule or the efficiency rules we put in place, no president has done more. the fact is we're not going to make this transition overnight and it's better to be in a position we're relying on american oil and gas than on trying to import oil and gas during that period including some of the most volatile regions of the world. the fact is as this american oil and gas is being extracted, it is also being subjected to the

most stringent environmental and safety standards of any other country in the world. so we're doing this safely, doing this in the way that's the best for our economy, and making a historic commitment to transition our economy to a low carbon economy both because it's in the best interests of our planet, of our economy, and it's in the best interests of the public health of our children and our communities. >> let me respond once on this or say what critics would say which is that pragmatism in this case can be essentially a bargain with oblivion, that the practical solution, at a certain point more aggressive strategies, meaning leaving oil on the ground will have to happen and there's no place that illustrates that more clearly than what is happening in the arctic in terms of the pace of what we're up against. >> well, chris, you're right. one of the reasons the president has traveled to alaska is that

there are communities in alaska that are dealing firsthand on a daily basis with the impacts of climate change. we know that the impacts is having a disproportionate impact here in the arctic, and this is one of the things we're here to highlight. but, look, when it comes to the president's record on taking steps to fight climate change, he takes a back seat to no one. the president is leading the world to make significant commitments as a part of the u.n. process that's supposed to come to a head in december where we can make historic progress by working with the world by leading the international community in the direction of fighting carbon pollution and fighting climate change. let me say one other thing about this, chris, in terms of making this transition that's so critical to the success of you're economy and the future of our planet, the president has dedicated significant investments in renewable energy and that's why you've seen solar energy increase 20 fold since the president took office. wind energy has tripled.

all of this dependent upon the investments this country has committed to under president obama's leadership and that's why the president is proud of his record but he's also committed to making sure that we're going to do the right thing both for our planet and our economy. >> from the white house's perspective, the denialism we've seen in some corners, is that over in terms of how the president and this administration thinks about the duration of his term? >> well, chris, what we certainly have seen, the vast majority of the american public understands that we can to longer be in a position where we're denying climate change. i think there are some members of the republican party, including at least a couple running for president who haven't gotten the memo yet, but the fact is there's a consensus in this country now that climate change is real, that climate change is, however, something we can do something about. and by taking steps to fight carbon pollution and to fight climate change, we can actually

make a difference in terms of the future of our planet. we can do some good things for our economy. we know that a growing sector of our economy is the renewable energy sector and making smart investments in wind and solar and in energy efficiency isn't just good for the planet. it's a good economic strategy as well. that's why the president is committed to it and there still does seem to be a debate in the republican party about whether climate change is real. president obama and the vast majority of the american public do acknowledge it's real and that's why the president has put forward a common sense but effective strategy for dealing with it in a way that's good for our economy. >> josh earnest from alaska, looks gorgeous there. thanks for joining us. >> thank you, chris. >> some late breaking news in the brewing mckinley gate scandal. president obama wants to change the name of mt. mckinley to denali after more than 100 years. a great insult to ohio. i will change back, exclamation point, make mckinley great again. is the schedule rigged to

give hillary clinton the edge? who is openly and unabashedly criticizing the leadership coming up. i hate cleaning the gutters. have you touched the stuff? it's evil. and ladders. sfx: [screams] they have all those warnings on 'em. might as well say... 'you're gonna die, jeff.' you hired someone to clean the gutters. not just someone. angie's list helped me find a highly rated service provider to do the work at a fair price. ♪ everyone can shop, but members get more with reviews, live customer support, and better pricing. visit angieslist.com today. pwho thrives on the unexpected. andha-ha! box shall we dine? [ chuckle ] you wouldn't expect an insurance company to show you their rates and their competitors' rates, but that's precisely what we do. going up! nope, coming down. and if you switch to progressive today, you could save an average of over 500 bucks.

stop it. so call me today at the number below. or is it above? dismount! oh, and he sticks the landing! for the very first time in recorded history there are three major hurricanes in the central and eastern pacific ocean. seen here from left to right, all formed at the same time, all three of them were classified as category 4 hurricanes on saturday night. two have since weakened and jimena is classified as a category 4 storm. the hurricanes are getting fueled by the unusually warm pacific ocean and ever increasing el nino affect according to "the washington post." el nino has surpassed the threshold in one of the key regions in the pacific ocean, something this region hasn't done since the most powerful el nino on record in 1997. just keep in mind that's two degrees, two degrees does all that. that's what we're looking for

globally with climate change and that means more of this record breaking weather.

this is totally unprecedented in our party's history. this sort of rigged process has never been attempted before. whose decree is this exactly? where did it come from? to what end? what party interest does this decree serve? how does this help us tell the story of the last eight years of democratic process? >> martin o'malley is questioning why the national committee will hold only four debates before next february's iowa caucuses. dnc has sanctioned six in total so far including two after iowa but that is not enough according to o'malley. speaking at the d.c. summer meeting told them to their faces not only are they wrong but limiting the number of debates is detrimental to the democratic process.

>> how does this help us make our case to the american people? one debate in iowa? that's it? and, get this, the new hampshire debate is cynically wedged into the high point of holiday shopping season so as few people watch it as possible. is this how the democratic party selects its nominee? are we becoming something less? >> o'malley never name check debbie wasserman schultz sitting a few feet away. things seemed awkward when they shook hands after the speak. earlier today when we asked the dnc for a statement on o'malley's comments, she told cnn producer, quote, he chose to use that 15 minutes to focus on debates as opposed to his candidacy. that was certainly his right. o'malley is not alone in being frustrated with the number of primary debates. "washington post" reporter tweeted, quote, asked if he agrees calling the process rigged, bernie sanders says i do. it is not uncommon for a

candidate trailing the polls to want more debates to make up ground. both criticism raises the deeper question whether they institutionally is, as of this moment, genuinely committed to having an open and competitive primary. we'll debate the democratic debates next.

do you feel the party is unfairly supporting one candidate over the rest of the field? >> i think they were, but i'm hopeful after today that the broader democratic party has

woken up to this injustice and we're going to have more debates. >> martin o'malley saying the dnc stacked the deck in favor of hillary clinton. jess mcintosh, msnbc contributor, sam, host of the majority report podcast. jess, let me start with you. to me there's a real question, it's an open, competitive process but we all know the reality of the democratic party, the clintons are massively influential. can you honestly say the institutional democratic party is neutral and looking for an open competitive primary? >> yes, absolutely. as someone who works for an organization that is openly supportive of her cant daytona, it's a neutral party. they don't play favorites with a

front-runner. they have six debates scheduled. i don't see where there's a lot of traction to be gained by saying six is somehow rigging the democratic process. you have to limit the number of debates. the question becomes where do you limit it? at four, at six, at eight? i think they came up with a decent solution. >> you don't have to. there kept being more, the republicans and democrats this time decided if you want to unsanctioned debates you were penalized but that rule is both parties this time around that is unprecedented. >> but look what happened to the republican field last time around. if the point is to have a substantive conversation about kind of agenda and where the differences are, i don't know debates are the best way to do

it and six, i think, is plenty of time to air those differences. >> i've got to say i think the last in 2008 we had a lot of debates. >> a ton. >> a ton. i think they were helpful. i understand the reason the republicans want to maintain discipline because they convinced themselves it hurt them the last time around. they had a flawed candidate. they have a flawed party. the idea the democrats can't have a debate of substance. it's clear that the theory here was republicans are trying to contract their race. we want to try to contract ours. i think it will backfire because the republican race is not what i think the republicans anticipated. i don't think it's what the democrats anticipated it. i think at the end of the day i think it's wrong to limit the debates, to sanction people if they go outside of the

apparatus. but on top of that i think it's going to backfire and i think this will hurt hillary clinton if that was part of the agenda. it's hard to imagine it wasn't. at the end of the day, there has to be an affirmative case put out there and the republicans are drawing a lot more attention than people anticipated. there is a void there. >> what do you think -- >> the idea the republicans are somehow drawing an affirmative case is not at all what's happening. democrats are talking about what they want to do when they're president. republicans are trying to out crazy each other. >> they're drawing a negative view of hillary clinton. the poll that came out, that word association poll, she is not being helped by the situation. the bottom line, it looks like the democrats are hiding. when you schedule four debates

and three are on the weekend and one buried in the middle of shopping, and then two floating around after the votes -- >> we have the caucuses at the beginning of the year. you have to debate around the holiday season. i think, look, i don't envy -- >> you don't have to debate exclusively around the holiday season. you can have more than one debate at that time. it looks like the democrats are hiding. >> it doesn't look like they're hiding with six debates. i don't envy the people who are involved in these negotiations at all. it is 100% impossible to make everybody happy. there is just no chance. >> right. but here's my question. here is my question. it does seem to me -- i mean, six doesn't seem like that's way too few. there is an asymmetry of attention. that asymmetry of attention has to do with a lot of features of the republican primary which are not things that you want to replicate to produce attention or not a blueprint model. that said, i think sam's point the more coverage the better,

right? if you believe in the party's platform, the internal debates are compelling and speak to the american people, the more of that you get it would seem the better. >> i think every candidate is laying out their agenda and their platform and i think it gets the coverage it gets. i wish it got more but that they are making the case to the american public what they're going to do when they become president. that's not what the republican side of the aisle is doing. they're sucking up all the oxygen. that's the media landscape we've got. and so we're seeing lopsided coverage. there's no way we're going to compete with what donald trump is doing on a daily basis. >> here is one of the ironies, the paradoxes of this race. the more competitive the democratic race is, in some ways it's worse for hillary clinton because it's more competitive but in a way the coverage is better because to the extent that it's not competitive and she's treated as the nominee already or already treated as two years into her first term,

that coverage is back. and so in a weird way, i actually think it's in her interest. two of our draft card contestants, we will give you an update soon. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> thank you, chris, my friend. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. happy monday. there's lots of news going on today including a lot of stuff that has been breaking late in the day and into this evening. we're keeping an eye on president obama's historic trip to alaska. the president is in alaska right now. he's going to be there today, tomorrow and wednesday. he's giving remarks tonight on the issue of climate change. which is obviously a big part of the reason he's in alaska and a big question mark over how he will deal with him green lighting arctic oil drilling by shell oil. the president making those remarks tonight. he spent a big portion meeting with native alaskan groups. it's late in the day.