tv Meet the Press MSNBC November 28, 2022 1:00am-2:00am PST
things, slowly, little by little. i planted those big trees now. another big. so that tells me that, well, i'm really getting old. yes, beautiful memories i can't just feel sadness and my hard, life is too short. >> here you don't exit. >> no, you have to find excuses to be happy every day instead of bringing excuses not to be happy. >> -- >> - ♪♪ this sunday, mourning in america. two mass shootings two days apart, at a walmart in virginia, a nightclub in colorado.
it's a disturbing ritual of mourning. for victims. both political parties disagreeing how to fix gun violence. >> i'm going to try to get rid of assault weapons. >> president biden says he'll push for a ban, while republicans point to mental health, not the guns. >> so much of this is really a moment to reflect on the state of mind of america and virginia and this mental crisis we know we're in the middle of. >>ly speak with the democratic governor jared polis of colorado. and republicans return to power in the house, threatening to impeach to the secretary of homeland security. >> kevin mccarthy's path, faces pressure from his own members who wants him to target the president and his cabinet officials. i will speak to james comber of kentucky, expected to be the next chair of the oversight
committee. and stepping down. >> every day, for all of those years i've given it everything i have. i have never left anything on the field. >> dr. anthony fauci, the chief medical adviser to president joe biden and the nation's top infectious disease expert for decades, is here to talk about the pandemic and his legacy, as he steps down next month. joining us is susan page, maria teresa kumar, matt gorman, and reid wilson. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest-running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. americans found themselves in a familiar place this thanksgiving week, grieving for the lives lost in multiple mass shootings. in colorado springs five people were killed at a lgbtq night clubs. the alleged shooter is facing
possible hate crimes charges on top of the murders. in chesapeake, virginia, six people were killed in a walmart in virginia by a disgruntled employee. the questions that these mats -- it's evert in how each side responds to these massacres. democrats stress the urgency for action and called for stricter gun laws. >> the idea we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick, just sick. it has no, no social values, zero, none, not a single solitary rationale for it except for profiting manufacturers. >> can you do anything during
the lame-duck session? >> i'm going to try. i'm going to try to get rid of assault weapons. >> republicans blame the issue of mental health, not guns. we see again in the commonwealth, in colorado, and in idaho, these just stark reminders of senseless violent crime. so much of it is really a moment to reflect on the state of mind of america and virginia, and this mental health crisis we know we're in the middle of. the fact is we do have a mental health crisis in this country. out of the 40,000 deaths from gun violence this year, over half of them were due to suicide. that doesn't mean that we don't also have a gun issue in this country as well. we are the only country in the world with significantly more guns than people. in a culture that fiercely resists any restrictions on the right to bear arms, which is enshrined in our constitution. and perhaps the contributing factor to the commonplace lack of response from washington, the fact that voters are not demanding a response. just 11% of voters pick gun
policy as the issue that mattered most to them in casting their vote in this month's midterm elections. in fact, in seven of our nine top senate battleground states, that percentage was even smaller of voters who picked guns as their top issue. whether they're numb, traumatized, cynical or just have other issues, the reality is politicians respond to voters, until voters makes this a priority, it is unlikely washington will. joining me is jared polis. the democratic governor of colorado. consider this list of colorado's deadliest mass shootings. it reminds mention no place is at safe, whether it's at school, columbine, whether it's at the movies, in aurora, whether it's simp live grocery shopping in boulder or unwinding at a nightclub in colorado springs.
governor, polis, welcome back to "meet the press." >> good morning, chuck. >> how do you avoid a wash/rinse/repeat cycle here? how do we stop it? >> sadly you've had to do too many versions of this show, chuck, and first and foremost, at the club q shooting i spent much of the time thanking the heroes who acted boldly. the losses could have been worse. i think what you need to do if you're serious about reducing these kinds of gun violence events is try to take the best ideas from all sides at work. of course, it's about mental health. of course it's about gun policy, of course it's about anti-lgbtq rhetoric. it's about all these things.
we need to do as leaders, we need to walk and chew gum statement. we need to try to make decision that lead to a safer country. >> one of the responses you did after -- i want to get my events right, i believe it was after the boulder shooting, that's when the state of colorado implemented a red-flag law. i think you believe here if there was a better understanding of how the red flag law worked, perhaps this shooter is prevented from having a gun at the time he wants to do his massacre, is that your sense? >> this looks like this would have been a good instance for the use of colorado's new red flag law, which has been used several hundred times, but could have been used even more. what this is, chuck, and a number of states have it, it's a legal way to temporarily remove access to someone's guns while they're experiencing a mental health crisis.
that could be reported by a parent, a loved one or by a sheriff department or law enforcement. we need to make sure that's more available and easier when somebody is an immediate threat. and there were signs in this troubled person's past. that he would have been a threat. this could have instigated a red-flag law while he experienced a mental health crisis. so those kind of tools are data-driven, they work and they can reduce suicide and from time to time, even reduce the likelihood of these horrific events. >> i guess the question i have is, is this the best law that you can come up with because of the current circumstances we live in politically? or is this a good idea, no matter the current state of our politics? i say this, because you really are asking people to do something that isn't comfortable, which is insert themselves into somebody else's life.
>> no, it's never comfortable. that's why you want to look at the ability of law enforcement. it's certainly better than the alternative of doing nothing or having tools, and watches somebody at risk. so, yes, it's called an extreme risk protection order. it works -- here's what it is, chuck. when somebody is having a mental health crisis, in immediate danger to self or other, they can be temporarily detained, 24-hour or 72-hour holds, but the minute they're released, they can still be a danger to themselves or others, just not that immediate danger this, this triggers another way they don't have access to something that could turn that feeling they have toward self-destruction or a mental health issue into a tragedy. >> where would you like to go? with the next round of laws, do you think this has to come from the federal level? is there anything more the state of colorado can do, in your mind?
>> well, we're certainly going to take a hard look at why red flag law wasn't used in this case, what could be used to make available, add different parties to make sure that it's used when it should be used, but of course the answer needs to be national as well. we have universal background checks in colorado. some of our neighboring states don't even have background states someone could drive an hour or two, buy a weapon and return to our state. yes, it should look at federally. it doesn't -- looking at the rhetoric that's used in political realm and how that can instigate these acts of violence. all of these are very valid issues that we need to really look at ourself exam as a society to try to remedy. >> i was just going to say, when you look at the club q shooting, you can't help but say how much
of this mental health problem with this person was triggered by hateful rhetoric online, and how much of this is access to a weapon when you're in a mentally unstable state. >> i encourage policymakers to look at all of the above. we'll find what that balance was, but in a different case, the balance could be different. we need when people are saying incendiary things somebody who's not well balanced can think they're doing something heroic, when it's actually a horrific mind. we need to be mindful of the rhetoric. we need to try to heal people, bring people together, never cast one group of americans against another. would you pursue what president biden wants to pursue, an assault weapons ban, ar-15 out of circulation?
>> well, look, in this case he had two guns. i think it was reported one was a ghost weapon, may not have had a serial -- in colorado we have a magazine limit, 15 bullets, no more than 15 bullets in a magazine, so effectively it reduced the ability of high-powered weapons to do harm. i think all of these things should really be looked at, but again, it's not just about gun policy. yes, that should on the table to discuss in a thoughtful, rational way, but also we need to talk about mental health, the divisive rhetoric, that even some people who aspire to positions of leadership use every day. >> if you were still in congress, would you vote for an assault weapons ban? >> i was generally supportive of national efforts toward closing loopholes. which type of weapons were fully
automatic weapons already effectively ban -- not a way to get ban -- if you're talking about a similar process, where you need an additional license or background check for some of the most high-powered weapons, i did support that as a member of congress. that's the kind of thing we should be looking at nationally. but not to the exclusion of all these other things that we're talking about. >> so you believe there should be classifications of certain types of weapons? governor jared polis, democrat from colorado, thank you for sharing your perspective. >> always a pleasure, chuck. joining me now is congressman james comer, hoping to become the next chair of the oversight committee, representing kentucky's first district home to paducah, since 2016. this is his first time joining the program. congressman, welcome to "meet the press," sir. >> good morning, chuck. >> look, i wanted to talk about
what your agenda is goingt be in a couple months, but i want to ask you on guns. i know what your personal position is here. is there any gun law that you would like to see stricter when it comes to the purchases of weapons? >> we already have many gun laws on the book. if passing a bill would simply end gun violence, i think you would have overwhelming support in congress for that. that's like saying congress could pass a bill that reduces inflation. that didn't reduce inflation. passing bills doesn't solve the problem. we have, as governor youngkin said, a mental health crisis. i think there's overwhelming support to increase funding for mental health and social services groups to better identify the troubled people before they commit crimes. >> how would you suggest we go about preventing mentally unstable folks from purchasing
guns, if we don't have a waiting period, or don't have certain classifications for certain weapons. is there a way to do this? >> well, that's something that congress, i'm sure, is going to discuss. it's been discussed the entire six years i've been in congress. it's very difficult. the number one priority with respect to crime in american for republicans is going to be the fentanyl crisis. we talk about terrible gun crimes in america, but we've had over 100,000 deaths because of fentanyl pouring across our border, which isn't secure right now. that's a priority come january. >> but nobody wants to see these massacres. we talk about the individual's freedom to have the right to bear arms, but people want freedom to shop at walmart without fear of being shot.
is there any place, any room -- i know where your position is -- if we had a waiting period with the walmart shooter, if possible, three days he might have calmed down or we might have found somebody troubling in his past and he didn't get the weapon. >> chuck, you talk about this a lot on "meet the press," but when you look at cities that have the most strict gun laws, like washington, d.c., chicago, these are the cities with the highest rate of crimes committed with guns. just simply passing more bills isn't going to solve the problem. i think we need to get serious about law enforcement, we need to invest in more law enforcement and mental health, and try to improve communication between our social agencies as well as our law enforcement. >> i have heard this talking point about gun laws and cities. i don't know if you realize this, the states that/the most
gun laws is the least 5789 of per capita crime, with the least amount of gun laws seem to have did most -- i'm showing it here on the screen. i don't know if you can see it here. there is a correlation. if you have more gun laws on the books as a state, you have fewer gun-related crimes -- gun-related deaths. that has been proven statistically. >> in places like rural america, where just about every other household exercises their second amendment rights, there's not a lot of crimes in these areas. one reason is potential criminals know that these people are exercising their second amendment rights. this is something that's indoctrinated in our constitution, something that republicans hold close, and we're going to continue to protect our second amendment rights, while at the same time we want to get serious about the fentanyl crisis, as well as the looting that's taking place in cities.
we need more law enforcement and need to have prosecutors that are serious about prosecuting, not letting people off. these are issues that will be debated early on in a new republican majority. >> speaking of the republican majority. if kevin mccarthy can't get 218 votes for speaker, who can? i know you're a supporter of kevin mccarthy. what are you telling your colleagues who are denying him their support right now? >> well, i think we have a lot of time between now and january 3rd. i'm of the opinion that on january 3rd, we'll come together as a conference and elect kevin mccarthy to be speaker of the house. i think this is something that's ongoing. there are certainly five to eight members who have said they're leaning towards voting no against kevin mccarthy. they have a right to support whoever they want. they have their opinions, they
have their goals, many of them on my committee, i'm friends with them, but i'm hopeful at the end of the day we'll come together and elect kevin. we had an election between kevin mccarthy and my friend andy biggs, and kevin had won by nearly 200 votes. >> what is the most credible critique of kevin mccarthy that you think is fair from them that they're making? >> well, certainly there's been instances in the past that certain republicans' voices weren't heard in the conference, but at the end of the day we need to give kevin a chance. i think some members are frustrated because of what paul ryan or john boehner did. kevin mccarthy has never had a chance to be speaker. we had an election, lot of debate in conference. in the end, he was the overwhelming winner.
i'm hopeful that our conference will come together, and i believe we will and make him the next republican speaker of the house. >> assuming you're chairman of the oversight committee, we've got one investigation you get to focus on, if there's just one. i know there's a bunch you want to do. what's the one? >> well, we're going to investigate between 40 and 50 different things. we have the capacity. we'll have 25 members on the committee, and we're going to have a staff close to 70. so we have the ability to investigate a lot of things. and let's just face it, over the past two years, the democrats haven't investigated anything in this administration. they've investigated the washington commanders football team. we've had several hearings on social issues that the oversight committee has absolutely nothing to do with, issues like abortion. we believe that there have been hundreds of billions of dollars,
if not trillions wasted over the past three years. that spans two administrations in the name of covid. we want hears on that. we want to determined what hat with the fraudulent ppp loan funds, some of this money being spent for state and local governments in the covid stimulus monies. these are things that will be priorities for us as a committee. waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement. >> as a member of the republican party, donald trump in many cases is seen as the leader of the party. he was dining with a known white supremacist, and certainly somebody who traffics in anti-semitic rhetoric. do you think it was a mistake for the former president to do that? >> well, certainly needs better judgment in who he dines with, he issued a statement saying he didn't know who those people were. at any rate, my focus is going
to be investigating the current administration and trying to get a handle on the massive amount of waste, fraud and abuse if our federal government. i think that's where americans want us to be. >> i understand, better judgment. i assume you would condemn this? you wouldn't take a meeting with this person? >> i would not take a meeting with that person, no. i wouldn't take a meeting with kanye west, either, but that's my opinion. >> james comer, republican from kentucky, i imagine we'll have more to talk about on the investigations as the time moves on. thank you for sharing your perspective, sir. >> thanks for having me on. when we come back, his leadership in the coronavirus pandemic, made him both a hero and villain. you just heard the investigations that will start on covid, coming up. dr. fauci is here to reflect on his legacy, as he's set to step
i know there's conflicting information about dupuytren's contracture. i thought i couldn't get treatment yet? well, people may think that their contracture has to be severe to be treated, but it doesn't. if you can't lay your hand flat on the table, talk to a hand specialist. but what if i don't want surgery? well, then you should find a hand specialist certified to offer nonsurgical treatments. what's the next step? visit findahandspecialist.com today to get started.
after 54 years, dr. anthony fauci is stepping down next month. throughout the years he's guided the country's response to the aids crisis, ebola, and, of course, covid-19. he appeared on this show nearly 20 times near during the pandemic. we used to joke he was a co-host. he was also villainized by many on the right that opposed the shutdowns, and used him as the symbol of their attacks. joining me is dr. anthony fauci. good to see you in person. >> thank you very much. >> the first time we've been in person since the start of this pandemic. >> yes, indeed. >> i want to begin by seeing what insight you have with what's going on in china. let me just put up the headlines for the audience here. unrest over covid lockdowns,
fear of quarantine camps, shutting down beijing, protests grow after an apartment blaze killed ten. what aes going on in china and why do they seem to be in a worse plan than any else in the world? >> their approach has been rather severe and draconian the kinds of shutdowns without a seeming purpose. if you're having a situation, if you recall, you know, almost three years ago when we were having our hospitals over-run, you remember the situation in new york city, you had to do something immediately to shut down that flow so, remember, we were talking about flattening the curve. the social distancing, restrictions and shutdown, which was never really complete, is done for a temporary period of time for the purpose of regrouping, getting more personal protective equipment, getting people vaccinated.
it seems that in china it was just a very, very strict extraordinary lockdown, where you lock people in the house, but without any seemingly end game to it. if the end game was to, let's get everybody vaccinated, including and particularly the vulnerable, then you could see how a temporary lockdown like that, but they went into a prolonged lockdown without any purpose or end game to it, which doesn't make sense. >> you understand the vaccination strategy? >> in many respects, chuck, it baffles me. >> they refuse outside vaccines. they only use their own. >> which clearly, with all due respect, was not very effective at all, compared to the number of vaccines available. also, interestingly, they did not, for reasons that i don't fully appreciate, protect the elderly by making sure the elderly got vaccinated.
so, if you look at the prevalence of vaccinations among the elderly, it was current productive, it's people you need to protect were not getting protected. >> almost as if it was a strategy. an authoritative regime like that, it almost looked like a strategy. >> i don't know what it was, but from a public health standpoint, it did not make sense. >> there is one theory why they're acting peculiar. they still have not come clean on what they can tell us about the start of this pandemic. >> yeah, that is true, that is, in some respects -- and i don't mean this in a pejorative way -- in anything we've had to do over decades, whether it's bird flu, or the original sars in 2002, even when there's nothing to hide, they act in a suspicious non-transparent way, just probably because they don't want
to make it look like there's a blame, when the reality is if something evolves in the country, it's not to blame, but let's find out what went on so we can be transparent and prevent the next time happening. >> what can we do to, once and for all, sort of figure out whether the lab leak is a viable theory? >> the only thing that can be done is to have an open, transparent interaction with their scientists and our scientists, get in there, look at the epidemiology, look at what went on there, look at what happened earlier on, maybe a month or so earlier, that has not been at all transparent enough for us to feel comfortable. >> where are on you this now? where are you fauci on the lab leak theory? >> and i have completely open mind about that, despite people saying i don't. i have a totally open mind, but if you look at the preponderance
of evidence that's been accumulated by a group of highly respected evolutionary virologists -- the everyday points to a natural occurrence. the evidence on that is pretty strong. having said that, we still all have to keep an open mind to what the origin is. >> is this country ready for the next pandemic, or we still in it? >> we're certainly still in it. you just have to look at the numbers. we're still having between 300 and 400 deaths per day. the idea that, forget it, this is over, it isn't. we're going into the winter right now. we have the wherewithal to mitigate against another surge. it's up to us to make sure it doesn't happen. that's the thing that's very
frustrating among public health officials. we have an updated vaccine booster, but the uptake of that is less than 15% somewhere between 11% and 15%. we've got to do better than that. >> i asked the former vice president mike pence, who you worked quite closely with at the start of this, how you became so vilified by the right. here was his answer to me. >> the problem was, i believe, that dr. fauci ultimately aligned himself with many democratic governors who took what were temporary policies, and made them long-term policies in their state, and the american people love freedom. >> i respect the former vice president, we got along well. in the white house. but i disagree with him. i don't align myself with anybody, chuck. i'm a physician, a scientist, a public health person. it doesn't matter if you're a democrat or republican.
i go by the public health principles. those are the recommendations i made then, and the recommendations i made now during the biden administration, so i would have to respectfully disagree with the former vice president. >> people who don't know your legacy, during the aids crisis, you were vilified by many then. and over time, people sort of understood what your role was and what it wasn't. how do you feel like history will treat your time? >> just very briefly, the so-called vilification with the aids activists was entirely different. apples and oranges. >> you've been the target before. >> of course, because i have found myself, just through circumstances being in the middle of a health crisis that had a great impact on americans and global impact. i would think if people look at
history, what we did, how we became from adversaries to collaborators, and people who made things happen in a very positive way, i hope to be remembered for what i tried to do, just bring science and medicine, and public health principles to very serious crises that we've had. as i said before, i've given it everything i have to do that, back from the 40 years ago with hiv to the current situation with covid, with ebola, zika and everything else in the middle. >> the reason we kept having you on, you speak english, you don't speak science. very helpful having clear, a clear way of communicating, do you think our politics is so divisive, though, that somebody in your position can't succeed anymore? >> i'm very troubled about that. i've never seen the intensity of the divisiveness now. if you look at public health
principles, it just doesn't make any sense how you can have a divisiveness where ideological principles or bentz have make people make decisions that have an impact on their lives and the lives of their family, to have red states under-vaccinated, blue states be well-vaccinated, the deaths among republicans versus democrats are dramatic. if you look at the curve, it's tragic. i've said before, i don't want to see anybody suffer and die from covid, i don't care in you're a far-right republican or far-left democrat. everybody deserves to have the safety of good public health and that's not happening. >> dr. anthony fauci, thank you for your service. good to have you here. >> good to be here. so, if kevin mccarthy doesn't have the votes to be the next speaker, so who the heck does?
gorman, and maria teresa kumar. i want to start with my conversation with james comer, susan. i think what's interesting, when i asked him the question, if not mccarthy, then who? that sounds like that's the question he's trying to ask all of his friends in the caucus. >> he made it clear mccarthy have the votes. he said he was hopeful that mccarthy would win. that's not a prediction, not a confident prediction. the fact is kevin mccarthy does not now have the votes to -- that doesn't mean he won't get them, but if he gets them, he'll make concessions that he has to live with. >> reid, this was kevin mccarthy in october on the issue of impeachment. let me put it up on the screen.
i think the country doesn't like the impeachment for political purposes at all. now, a quote from last week -- if secretary mayorkas does not resign, house republicanses will vet every order. >> the freedom caucus right now doesn't have a specific beef with kevin mccarthy. all their concessions are about future fights. they're trying to extract essentially the rope that he would then use to hang himself. if he doesn't kowtow to their whims. i think this is a part of it. this is sort of the political nightmare he has. mccarthy is within reach of the goal he's chased his entire career, and yet it could be so short-lived if he's not either in service to the freedom caucus, our in an election if the house republicans become joe biden's bad guy. this could be an extremely
short-lived majority. >> matt, i want to put up a list. you worked at the places that have to re-elect, usually people some swing districts. the 17 news republicans members representing district that voted for joe biden. every one of these reside in a state that joe biden carried. the point is that these are 17 votes, these are -- these are just as potentially important as any freedom caucus voter. >> i'm only voting for kevin mccarthy, so get your about together, guys. with oversight, too, they have started laying some groundwork, wait a minute, we're going to d.c. to do other things, not just investigate full time. i think that provides a check as well. >> one thing i'll also say -- >> comer never mentioned the word hunter biden. i asked about his priorities.
this is one of those cases i wanted to here what he was going to say to an audience that's more of a bipartisan audience, and lo and behold, no hunter biden. >> i think it will be the origins of covid, and not making it personal, look, how do we prevent another global up and down, and what is china covering up? you will never, ever lose voters -- >> dr. fauci's ready to have the same conversations. i think you're not wrong, that's a more unifying place to start. >> i think one of the challenges, kevin mccarthy's the initial reaction of the insurrection was wrong. he's like, how do i get power? the interesting thing about kevin mccarthy he's a politician first he's not a policy guy. the people here are politicians first. i think this is all basically trying to figure out what did -- what are the concessions we can
get in trading whatever for the speakership. at the end of the day, what we'll see out of the republican-controlled congress is very much, yes, these investigations, but machinations behind the curtain, things that people in the american public don't understand, and it's how do we control ways and means? how do we control the mechanics of legislation? that will have long-term effects that we'll feel later. >> susan, and i can sort of sense the discomfort when i asked about the nick fuentes and kanye west who go and have dinner with donald trump. i think the last thing he would want is his investigations get wrapped up in trump. >> in trump world that's pretty fierce criticism with someone aligned with -- >> he really singed him.
>> what you're seeing with republican voters in the midterms and more republican officials is a desire for trumpism less a desire of trump. they're going to be following in his footsteps, regardless of who the next nominee is, but trump himself has become less electable, more controversial and more looking back than forward. >> more proactive condemnation, this was an opportunity for some republicans to sort of kick him while he was down, and they didn't. >> to susan's point, i think the party has been so remade in the image of donald trump that we're seeing trump 2.0 everywhere. we're seeing it in florida with ron desantis. in texas with governor greg abbott, to a degree in arizona. >> none of them are meeting with white supremacists or kanye west. >> this is the 2.0 part, these are the candidates honing
themselves for a 2024 election. >> the opposite of hate is not love, it's indifferent. this makes a lot of the party indifferent to trump. >> indifference is probably the best way to torture him, not care. before we go, this is a debate about gun control, but it shows you how this gun control debate has shifted a bit over time, at least when it comes to how each party has approached the issue. this is what raymond shaffer said, when asked about this issue 54 years ago, less than two weeks after bobby kennedy was killed. >> what we are attempting to do is to have strong gun control legislation, we want to have it both at the federal and state level. one of the ways, it's already been outlined about having a waiting period to investigate
individuals who want guns, to make sure they are proper persons to have them. we don't want to restrict the use of guns by law-abiding citizens, but as mr. spivak has already pointed out, we register cars, and i see nothing wrong with registering guns. egisterin. y before it starts, and it won't impact your ability to get pregnant in the future. find it yourself in the family planning aisle no prescription, no id. i've got this. ♪♪
need a backup plan? get plan b one-step. plan b helps prevent pregnancy before it starts by temporarily delaying ovulation—and you can resume your regular birth control right away. i've got this. ♪♪ welcome back. data download time. it's been over two weeks since voters cast their ballots in the midterm. how high was turnout?
we're getting a clearer picture of the full results, and we're trying to figure out, is turnout truly up or down from the record turnout of the 2018. the answer is, as often it is in politics, is it depends. overall turnout was down from 2018. 2022, nearly matched it, but still was a bit down. and it was a bit down in some interesting places. look, some of this is not surprising. the big dropoffs in these states all have to do with the lack of competitive statewide cases. in fact, mississippi, new jersey all had competitive senate races in 2018, none of them were on the ballot, that explains that. north dakota and tennessee had statewide blowouts. the other place where we saw a drop-off is in the big four states. didn't really have competitive statewide races. new york only got competitive
at the end. turnout was down in all four places. in fact 25% of decline all came from the nearly 2 million fewer voters in the big four states. now, turnout was up from 2018 in a lot of places extraordinarily competitive. look at the highest here in the top five, four of the five of are essentially in our 2020-2024 battleground states. for the presidency. new hampshire, arizona, pennsylvania and michigan. a lot of money spent, very competitive races, and very high turnout. now, you would have assume that would have meant turnout was up across the board in these states. pennsylvania, higher turnout in 2018 overall, but in the urban areas, wayne county is detroit, philadelphia county was philadelphia. so, while it helped democrats a bit overall, they have a bit of a yellow flag when it comes to urban turnout. when we come back, we're
we're back with our panel. we're back with our panel. guns -- wash, rinse, repeat. the dividing lines are the same. my thesis is there isn'tly isn't voters who are pushing politicians, and if there were, they would do more. fair? >> i think there's a sentiment that they do want reasonable gun laws, but i was at the white house when the president signed that legislation. it was the very first modernized gun flegs 35 years. it was the saddest ceremony. they were celebrating, because they lost loved ones. if you go to the states, you actually see areas where there are possibilities, california being the biggest example. one of the things that governor newsom has been able to
modernize a lot of this type of gun reform. it has an impact. they have one of the lowest gun rates. so the question is, where is the will at the end of the day? >> it is so divided. this is a poll, let me put it up. should gun laws be more strict, less strict, a majority want to see it more strict. when you look at it breakdown by party, those that want more strict, 76 voted democratic. i mean, matt gorman, can you identify the republican that has lost because they didn't have a gun control position? >> when we talk about voters clamoring for it, there was a different sentiment over the summer. might propelled the first gun reform bill, where you have mitch mcconnell and chris murphy in an election year voting for it. >> that tells you something. from a political standpoint, it did diffuse the issue. i think there's not as touch much appetite. i think the fact it was such a heavy lift, i think republicans
will want to see how the red flag laws in the states play out and give it more time. >> you focus on the states a lot with your new publication, and it's driving so much of this conversation. are states having a more nuanced debate? >> no, they're having the same debates, but because states are so divided now, and the majority of states are controlled by one party, we're seeing more action. >> you see either blue version of action or red version of action, but you're seeing action. >> in democratic states we're seeing actions on ghost guns on high-capacity magazines, and, by the way, those are becoming priorities of states that are moving into democratic trifectas next year -- michigan, minnesota, new york. you're going to start seeing -- new york has been -- michigan, minnesota, massachusetts, maryland, as democratic governors and legislators take over. it feels like they're taking one step forward and two steps back.
after the supreme court decision kwlerl this summer, a lots of these laws, high-capacity magazines, ghost guns started being challenged in federal courts in very blue states, in new york, in delaware. >> that would take up the docket over the next couple years. >> it is. the progress these blue states have made, the courts are starting to roll them back. >> susan, you and i have covered this town a long time. we're having the same debate. the weapons are different, but the debate is kind of the same. >> i think there's long-term risk per the republican party, because it's one more issue at which they're at odds with the majority of american public opinion. as with abortion, it's one more issue though makes them look more extreme, it puts at risk suburban voters, who are always the voters these days who determine who will win an election. >> i'm running out of time, but
there was a clip with a very compelling woman that basically said, the guns are all over the place. they're everywhere. you know, so don't infringe my right to protect myself. has the ship sailed? >> i think that's the challenge. during the pandemic, sadly, you saw an increase in communities of color getting arms, and they had before. that was the challenge, but you do look at a state like texas. in south texas, guns was number two issue for these voters. it was partly because of uvalde and el paso. there's an opportunity to have these conversations, because that's a state that doesn't want to make changes on the top. but the state you are looking at texas is also on the brink the change, so maybe it would be a quilt, a patchwork of gun laws that may keep americans safer.
>> a middle ground isn't popular, but that's what everybody is seeking and i don't know that can be found. >> and voters don't pay on ton of attention to gun issues as a top priority, even when it's on the ballot, it's not as popular as voters say it is. there's a ballot measure out there in oregon, it passed by 26,000 votes. i want to tell you about the recent episode in our magazine, meet the press reports, examining gun culture in america. check it out wherever you binge and get nbc news content. that's all we have. we'll see you next week, because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." nday, it's "meet the pre" it's very troubling and it shouldn't happen and we need to avoid those kind of empowering the extrem
IN COLLECTIONSMSNBC West Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on