Atlanta gears up for Rams-Patriots match-up during Super Bowl LIII

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," February 1, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Jobs jumping, the president crowing, and the 2020 Democratic field growing and growing. How do they plan to keep this economy humming?

Today, we dig through all the data. You decide if you are feeling that data.

Welcome, everyone. I'm Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."

And I want you to try this number on for size, 304,000. That is how many jobs were added to the economy last month. That was a lot more than anyone thought, continuing a trend that's been going on a lot longer than anyone predicted. Try 100 straight months of this, the longest uninterrupted job stretch ever. That's right, ever.

So much to get to, so let's get going with Blake Burman at the White House on what the president is saying, and Hillary Vaughn on how some Democrats who want his job are responding.

We begin with Blake.

Hey, Blake.

BLAKE BURMAN, CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Neil.

Kevin Hassett, the CEA chair, is one of a very, very small group of folks who briefs President Trump the night before the jobs number comes out. I was told last night, when Hassett did just that, when he put the numbers before the president, President Trump responded with a fist bump to his CEA chair.

Lots of good feelings over here at the White House involving this one. In fact, the White House Twitter account just a little while ago put out a video of Larry Kudlow, the president's top economic adviser, in which Kudlow said, I hate to tell you so, but the pessimists are wrong.

The president saying today that he wasn't surprised at all by the numbers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The jobs numbers just came out, and we added 304,000 jobs, which was a shocker to a lot of people. It wasn't a shocker to me. The country is doing really well. We have the strongest economy anywhere in the world by far.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BURMAN: Neil, when I spoke with Kevin Hassett earlier today, he pointed to a few things that they like that they see in these numbers, first off what you just hit on, that 100 straight months of job growth.

Now, some of that, of course, dates back to the Obama years. But Hassett told me the fact that it is 100 months in, and you're seeing 300,000-plus - - a 300,000-plus number, that is a very, very good sign.

Secondly, he pointed to the 3.2 percent year-over-year in earnings. He thinks that that vindicates the tax cuts. That is part of the reason why we're seeing, in his estimation, that 3.2 percent number. And also they said, even though the unemployment number ticked up from 3.9 to 4 percent, Hassett says they believe that that is strictly due to the government shutdown and would have stayed at 3.9 had there not been that -- Neil.

CAVUTO: And what is incredible too is that we have been growing over 3 percent wage growth four straight months. Haven't seen that in a long, long time.

BURMAN: Right.

CAVUTO: Blake Burman, thank you very, very much.

So what is a Dem to do when that job jump refuses to stop?

Hillary Vaughn has been doing some digging, looking at plans announced by some of those who want to take the president's place -- Hillary.

HILLARY VAUGHN, CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Neil.

Well, four of the nine Democratic candidates to announce plans to run for president in 2020 support the idea that the way to add jobs is to give one to everyone over 18 and pay them more than twice the federal minimum wage.

Senator Cory Booker was the brainchild behind a three-year pilot program last year that would guarantee that anyone over 18 would get a job that pays $15 an hour with paid family and sick leave, plus health care.

It would be tested out in 15 locations around the U.S. before going nationwide. Senator Kamala Harris co-sponsored the plan. And fellow Senators and 2020 hopefuls Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand supported it.

Trump's job growth plan has largely been focused on tax cuts and cutting back on regulation for businesses big and small. The Trump administration touts these cuts and his Jobs Act for lower unemployment rates and more jobs, cutting the corporate tax rate to 21 percent and a 20 percent deduction for small business income.

Democrats, though, settings sights on 2020, want to undo all of that, but are divided over who to tax more and who to tax less. Warren championing a billionaires tax on the ultra-rich, including family and sick leave and health benefits, also pledging to reverse this trend of the administration that she says she wants to help workers capture economic growth that they are helped -- helping create.

Kamala Harris proposing more tax cuts for the lower-middle-class in her multi-trillion-dollar tax plan called Lift the Middle Class Act. She said she will pay for it by undoing some of Trump's tax cuts and also adding new taxes and fees on some banks and financial institutions.

Harris also encouraged work force training for people being phased out by automation. Democrat billionaire Michael Bloomberg, though, on the rocks about a 2020 run, called Warren's plan probably unconstitutional.

You also have candidate Andrew Yang that's running on a plan for universal basic income that would cut out the middleman, the employer, entirely, and is promising, as president, to give everyone $1,000 cash, no questions asked, not a job needed. They would get that 1,000 bucks every month -- Neil.

CAVUTO: All right. Then the question becomes how you pay for it all.

Hillary, thank you very, very much.

Again, those tax hikes that are planned on the rich just part of a Democratic plan that has everyone united.

Let's get the read from GOP strategist right now Holly Turner. We have got former Clinton adviser Mark Penn, GOP pollster Lee Carter.

Obviously, Lee, they have crunched the numbers and realize what their base that these are popular lines of attack. Are they, within the Democratic Party?

LEE CARTER, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: Absolutely.

I mean, this is -- this is candy in many ways. Mark was saying before that a lot of these, we're talking about bumper sticker policies here, where it's like, of course you can look at them. That's red meat for the base.

And so I think that we're going to spend some time and these things are going to get torn apart. But the bottom line is, people love taxing the wealthy, they love attacking what the Republicans are doing. And there's no way to spend for all of this.

In many ways, we're talking about free recess, more recess and no more classes. And let's get everybody excited. And that's where we are right now.

CAVUTO: Yes.

Mark, I'm just wondering -- you were associated with the Clintons over the years -- whether someone like a Bill Clinton could have ever been nominated with this party now.

MARK PENN, FORMER CLINTON CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: Well, we don't know who's going to be nominated.

CAVUTO: True.

PENN: We know who is getting a lot of publicity. And, also, the most left candidates get the most publicity on Fox, because it's a foil.

So we will see. I don't think...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But we cover them all.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: And they all are united, with the exception of a couple, about espousing much higher taxes on the wealthy.

PENN: Well, let's see if Joe Biden -- Joe Biden is probably the front- runner right now in many of the polls.

CAVUTO: You still think he is?

PENN: I think he's going to be a lot more sensible.

Yes, he's still the front-runner. He's hanging back. But he's likely to be a lot more sensible. And these bumper sticker things that are going on for the primaries, most of them are not serious policies. They're just headline grabbers.

CAVUTO: All right, but with the base, it can help, depending, to Mark's point, on whether the base serves such a strong role in the ultimate nominee's selection.

I think in, the end, most parties want to have a winner than someone who appeals to their heart and soul. And maybe they can get both. What do you think, Holly?

HOLLY TURNER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, it's going to be challenging for a Democrat to get out of this primary without going far, far left.

So I don't -- I don't know what's going to happen. But it's not going to - - I mean, the Democrat Party is essentially dead. I mean, it's a socialist party now.

The -- Howard Schultz can't even run as a Democrat anymore. And just a couple of years ago, we all would have considered him a liberal Democrat, but his policies...

CAVUTO: And he was everybody's friend, until he decided to break ranks, right?

TURNER: He's too -- he's too -- he's too sane.

CAVUTO: Yes.

TURNER: And so he can't even run in the primary now. So...

CAVUTO: Yes, we're going to be getting into that in a little bit here.

But I'm wondering -- and, to Mark's point, it's still early in the going here, and anything and everything changes. But don't you need a more moderate type in either party to connect with voters, and that the secret is, of the 40 that gained jobs in the House, 32 of them were considered moderate?

CARTER: That's right.

Yes, I think to win in a general election, you need to be more moderate. The problem is the primaries. If you're going to have 20-something candidates, even if we're going to have 15 candidates, let's say, on a conservative thing -- and I don't think that's -- that's -- I think we're looking at a lot.

We're going to get a lot of those -- those moderates are going to split up. And so you're going to get the more extreme candidates getting a lot of attention, much like what happened in 2015, 2016 with President Trump. There were 17 candidates on the right.

And all of them, many of them were sort of traditional conservatives. They split the votes and then Trump was able to rise up. And he got his base. And I think the Democrats are going to be facing the very same thing.

And part of me thinks that that's why Howard Schultz's strategy isn't stupid at all. I think he's saying, I'm going to stay out of all of this, let them go far left, and here I'm going to be able to rise up as the moderate and have a different...

CAVUTO: But not as a Democrat, as an independent.

CARTER: As an independent.

CAVUTO: Which is an uphill battle. We're going to explore that a little later on.

But, Mark, is it your sense that -- I know in my state of New Jersey, when Murphy was running, the Democrat for governor, and got the job, everyone was for a lot of things that he wanted to do, because it wouldn't touch them. In other words, high taxes on the rich, why not? Higher pay for teachers, why not? As long as I don't have to pay for it.

That's a strong asset, right?

PENN: Well, look, I think class warfare is back at the Democratic Party.

I spent a lot of time in '96 working with the Clintons taking it out, right? And I think, unfortunately, it's back. And I think we're going to run through a cycle.

But, remember, when the Republican Party went through I think the resurgence of conservative bases, it was actually McCain and Romney that got the nomination. So I think not so fast here. The base voters in the primaries in California and Iowa may be very liberal, but there's a wide swathe of moderate Democrats who have yet to have their voices heard, and will be heard later on.

So let's not count this out. I agree. If the Democratic Party goes too far to the left, it'll create an opening for Schultz and others.

CAVUTO: Holly, I think, at the end, most parties prefer that they win. The worst of their choices is still better than the other guy's choice. Right? So maybe that pragmatism wins the day.

But to get to that day, given the front-loading of the primaries, particularly in California, that might benefit a Kamala Harris, or what have you, that it favors those who might be more left-leaning, or might be more inclined to raise taxes, or might be a part of this populist pitch.

What do you think it?

TURNER: It's -- I mean, it's true.

But I think, though, and the Democrats are fabricating this class warfare to create an environment like that. And so when we see all of these candidates talking about the people left behind and needing income for all, why are we even talking about that?

Why are we talking about raising taxes on the rich? I mean, we're doing great right now. It's the lowest unemployment on record. So to some degree...

CAVUTO: Well, the argument was -- and you even heard this out of Cory Booker today -- not everyone is going along with this ride, right? That's what they're saying.

TURNER: There's always -- and there's always going to be a very small percentage.

It's the smallest in history, is the point, right? So why not keep going this direction and see where it goes?

CAVUTO: Does that resonate?

PENN: Well, look, the truth is, where Democrats are winning is health care.

Is this were an election on the economy, and if the midterms had been on the economy, Trump actually has above a 50 percent rating on the economy.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: And health care decided it in a lot of key areas. Right.

PENN: It's health care, education, those kinds of issues where the Democrats have a bigger advantage.

CAVUTO: What do you think?

CARTER: I think he's absolutely right. I think health care is one of the biggest problems and I think one of the biggest failures of this administration. Promise he was going to fix it. It's not fixed. People are upset.

I do think, though, taxing the wealthy is a very, very, very popular strategy, and it has been forever. As long as I can remember, this is something, like tax the rich, and people are like, yes, let's get on board.

CAVUTO: Yes.

CARTER: I don't -- it's something that people get excited about.

CAVUTO: It's popular.

CARTER: Fifty-nine percent in Harris poll just said, I support Ocasio- Cortez saying, let's go 70 percent tax on the wealthiest Americans.

So it is a popular, as you say, bumper sticker policy.

CAVUTO: As it's long as it's not you. As it's long as it's not you.

There was one rich guy I was talking to on FOX Business Network who said: I'm fine with it, as long as that's about $1 more than where my income kicks in.

(LAUGHTER)

CARTER: Exactly right.

CAVUTO: We will have more after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We will be looking at a national emergency, because I don't think anything's going to happen. I think the Democrats don't want border security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, I think the president might ultimately be saying, I don't have any faith in what's going to happen these next couple of weeks with this conference committee that is deciding the fate of border security, a wall, whatever you want to call it, and avoiding another government shutdown.

North Dakota Republican Senator John Hoeven joins us right now. He's a member of that conference committee, equally staffed with Republicans and Democrats negotiating such a deal.

Senator, it's always good to have you.

It sounds like the president isn't very optimistic you guys will find an acceptable solution that will give him his wall.

SEN. JOHN HOEVEN, R-N.D.: I think he's making the point the Democrats are going to have to agree to some border funding or fence or wall, whatever you want to call it. But that's going to have to be part of the package.

CAVUTO: When you talk to your Democratic colleagues -- I know there's a lot you cannot say. I understand that. But are others open to it?

HOEVEN: Yes, there are Democrats that are willing to put border barrier funding in the package.

And I think they recognize that, to get a deal, we're going to have to have that. Obviously, Speaker Pelosi is taking a firm line. I don't know if she sees that as the opening negotiating position or not. We will find out.

But to get to an agreement, you have got to have something that funds border security. Everybody's saying that. Everybody at our meeting said, OK, we're all for strong border security. That consists of people, technology, and some kind of barrier.

And the key is that all three of those elements are going to have to be in the agreement we get to.

CAVUTO: So, when Nancy Pelosi is sending out the signal, don't -- no wall, no wall funding, it almost sounds like a direct order, and if any Democrat bolts from that, they might be in trouble.

HOEVEN: Well, we will see.

I mean, you -- as you know, a number of senators and House members have already said they're willing to support border barrier funding.

CAVUTO: Absolutely.

HOEVEN: OK?

So let's let this committee, this joint committee, do its work. Let's bring an agreement out. Now, it might be a two-step process. We might have to bring something out, and then go to the administration, and go to leadership in the House and Senate, and say, OK, what else has to be in here to get this over the finish line?

But this is what we're supposed to do. Let's do it. Let's make it happen. I think the president's trying to push the process along.

CAVUTO: So, if he does go the emergency route, and Democrats on this committee, Senator, are hearing that, what's to stop them from saying, well, the heck with it, then, the president has already made up his mind, he's going to go the emergency, and that's it?

HOEVEN: Well, we will see.

The best thing is to get to a solution that involves the Congress and the president. But, clearly, if they don't join with us on something reasonable, he's put himself in a position where he said, look, he's willing to compromise. He said, we will fund the things that you want, Democrats, but you have got to come across as well.

So they -- in essence, they'd be putting him in that position.

CAVUTO: So, if the president were not to go the emergency route, and go the route where he would threaten another government shutdown, would you draw a line within there? Other Republicans have told me they would. They don't think that would be a good idea.

HOEVEN: Well, nobody wants a government shutdown.

CAVUTO: Right.

HOEVEN: And you have seen the president basically say, look, you guys get to an agreement.

He's willing to compromise. He's working hard to try to make something happen here, but, if he has no other choice, then he would go the emergency declaration route.

CAVUTO: All right, Senator Hoeven, best of luck. I know you have been working long days trying to cobble together something. We shall see.

HOEVEN: Yes. Thanks, Neil.

CAVUTO: Fair and balanced, we will be talking to a Democratic congressman, Utah's Ben McAdams, later in the show, who might be open to that wall, just a different version -- after this.

And forget about whether we ever get a trade deal with China. Did you hear how we just walked away from a nuclear deal with Russia, they say -- or we say because they're cheating? Let's just say they are up in arms.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, SECRETARY OF STATE: For years, Russia has violated the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty without remorse.

We provided Russia an ample window of time to mend its ways and for Russia to honor its commitment. Tomorrow, that time runs out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: That's right.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announcing that the U.S. is leaving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia.

The implications of that, the significance of that with retired Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin.

General, good to have you. What do you make of this?

LT. GEN. JERRY BOYKIN (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Well, I think what you see here is a president who looked at this, just like he did the Iran deal and the Paris climate change treaty, and said, now, why are we doing this? We know they're cheating. We know they're violating it. Why are we doing this? It doesn't make sense.

And I think that -- I think that what he is doing was done the right way. And it is absolutely the right decision. And why did it take at least three administrations before him not dealing with it? Why did it take Donald Trump to come along and do this?

CAVUTO: Did we know, General? I mean, back in your day, did you know that this was going on or suspect it was going on? I know it's been whispered that they weren't adhering to this sort of thing. But what changed?

BOYKIN: Well, we confirmed it in about 2013.

And it became rather public in 2013. But, yes, we knew before then that the Russians were violating this. So, this was no surprise, when it was actually announced that they were doing that.

CAVUTO: I do want to talk about this.

But I would be remiss, since you were in intelligence as well, to maybe give us your thoughts on the battle the president has had, calling out his intelligence team, saying they were long -- wrong about some of these security threats from Iran and elsewhere, North Korea.

Now he's kind of saying in a tweet they're all on the same page. What do you make of that?

BOYKIN: Well, first of all, let's just look at it practically.

What we saw was, we saw the intelligence community giving an unbiased, nonpolitical assessment of where the world threats stand today, what affects America. That is -- that is exciting to me, because, during the last eight years under the Obama administration, we actually feared the intelligence community because of what they were doing to or against Americans.

And now you have got a very open and candid assessment that came out. I think the president's reaction initially was just exactly what we have seen before. It was a knee-jerk reaction. But I think that he is now walking that back.

And, look, he is allowing these people, good people that he selected to run these agencies, he's allowing them to give an honest assessment here. And it -- I -- it restores my faith in the intelligence community, Neil.

CAVUTO: Do you think that that should be done privately, though, sir?

BOYKIN: Well, I think that the president should know what they're going to say before they go up there.

But I can assure you that, if the president wanted to, if the advisers around him wanted him to take their briefing and get at least the highlights of what they were going to say, it's available to him. But he is a president United States and probably the busiest man in the world.

So I don't know why he didn't know that ahead of time. But that's something for his -- his administration to work out.

CAVUTO: But wouldn't they have been able to know amongst themselves -- these are all smart folks -- that this is in some cases a 180 from what the boss is saying, we ought to be on the same page here?

BOYKIN: Well, yes, I mean, there's certainly coordination between the various elements of the -- of the intelligence community.

And, of course, Dan Coats has a statutory responsibility for the entire intelligence community. So he has to know what Gina Haspel is going to say from the CIA. So there is that kind of collusion and coordination.

But, again, I want to say that I was not surprised by anything that they said. Anybody that watches what's going on in the world, that stays on top of this, was not surprised by that. The only thing that surprised me was when Dan Coats called for a restructuring of the intelligence community, and I thought he was dead on with that, but I did not expect to hear that.

CAVUTO: Or that he might not have run that by the president.

BOYKIN: Well, yes, that's correct.

But it was in response to a question, which...

CAVUTO: Sure.

BOYKIN: But the last reform was 2004 in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which came out of the 9/11 report.

So I think that the fact that he's calling for it is a very positive thing...

CAVUTO: All right.

BOYKIN: ... because it is time for the intel world to look at itself.

CAVUTO: All right, see, I can challenge you on that, General, because you're on remote. If you were here in person, I would not have asked you that obnoxious question.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: But you are remote.

Always good seeing you, my friend. Thank you very, very much.

BOYKIN: Good being with you, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, in the meantime, Venezuela is another hot spot we are watching so, so closely. This thing has just deteriorated before our eyes, and a new round of protests and rallies planned for tomorrow.

We are live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, "Cavuto Live," looking at these developments with, among others, the USS Cole commander, Kirk Lippold, on the significance of that and what's happening just south of our border.

In the meantime, Howard Schultz says he really wasn't ready for this, Democrats whipped into a frappe over his possible third-party run for the White House, just like Republicans were back in 1992, when Ross Perot did the exact same thing, and they say lost them the White House.

Don't look now, but brew two is on now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, the president is getting ready to board Air Force One. He's going to be going to Mar-a-Lago this weekend with his wife, family, take in the Super Bowl.

The weather, I can tell you, will be warmer. He's going to need that. There's a lot of cold back in Washington.

We're back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD SCHULTZ, CEO, STARBUCKS: This is about one thing, my love of America and my profound concern about where we are, and I believe the need to try and disrupt the system.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm obviously not happy, that we know the history of what independents do. They don't win.

JOHN PODESTA, FORMER CLINTON CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schultz would rather have as his legacy the fact that he became a billionaire selling Frappuccinos than he helped get Donald Trump reelected president of the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For many Democrats, not the time where we need someone who's inexperienced, who's a wealthy millionaire/billionaire, who just says, you know what? I want to be in it too.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The electoral math is just a disaster for Democrats on this one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't help elect Trump, you egoistical billionaire (EXPLETIVE DELETED)!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Well, something is brewing. And it's not nice.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz facing incredible backlash from Democrats over a potential third-party run for the president.

Guess who we got with us to discuss this? One of the most remarkable individuals in recent political history, Russell Verney. You might recall he was Ross Perot's campaign manager.

I want to take you back to 1992, when Ross Perot was thought to be just an asterisk. Well, that asterisk got 19 percent of the vote, the most successful two-party challenger we have seen in history, 19 percent of the vote. And he was a late entrant, remember?

He had quit the race, then rejoined the race. Russell was the guy who made it happen.

And, Russell, I know you and I were chatting about this on FOX Business, which, if you don't get, you should demand. And you brought up to me the notion that we dismiss third candidates to our detriment, and that they -- they're not jeopardizing other candidates, as much as they're speaking to something.

What did you mean by that?

RUSSELL VERNEY, FORMER ROSS PEROT CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Well, first, Neil, it's a pleasure to be back on with you and an honor to visit with your viewers all across the country.

But I think the independent candidates give people like me, a raging moderate, an opportunity to express my political viewpoint.

(LAUGHTER)

VERNEY: The Republicans and Democrats want to make the other party fail. So you will hear somebody whining today that Schultz might cause the other guy to win or us to lose.

Well, this is competition. Competition is the backbone of America. And if they can't win in a competition, whether there's two, three, four or five candidates, they shouldn't get into the race.

Right now, there's a potential of 25 candidates for the Democratic nomination. They have got competition. They can have competition in the general election. In fact, there should be more competition, Neil, so that people who have a very right-wing viewpoint can express it, a very left- wing viewpoint can express it through a candidate, me in the center can express it through the candidate of my choice, without having to go to just the selection of the Republican club or the Democratic club.

I think that, with the ability to vote for multiple candidates, we do get to impact the future. He may not win. Ross Perot didn't win in '92, but, in 1994, Newt Gingrich's Contract With America was written half out of Perot's "United We Stand" book....

CAVUTO: Fair enough. You're absolutely right about that.

(CROSSTALK)

VERNEY: And half out of the Christian Coalition book, because they were a powerful political bloc.

And then, in 1996, Bill Clinton did triangulation, and for the first time since probably the late '50s, we had a balanced budget, because they were trying to appeal to the Perot voters. So you can win without winning.

But I think the candidates, third-party and independent candidates, can in fact win.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But the argument, Russell, is that they divide the vote, and that, in 1992, your candidate cost George Bush Sr. the election. You have heard that a gazillion times. What do you think?

VERNEY: Yes, I offer cheese to the Republicans that whine like that.

(LAUGHTER)

VERNEY: Ross Perot...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, I will switch -- I will go even earlier, 1968, with George Wallace siphoning votes, we're told at the time in the South, and denying Hubert Humphrey an upset win over Richard Nixon.

Or I could talk about Ralph Nader in the 2000 contest. Small as his numbers were nationally, in Florida, they might have made the difference. You say?

VERNEY: Well, let's take Ross Perot first.

In 1992, the exit polling is clear that, if Ross Perot was not in the race, the outcome would have been the same, except Bill Clinton would have had a mandate. With only two candidates, you got to have more than 50 percent of the vote. So Bill Clinton would have been a mandate candidate, instead of a 40 percent candidate -- or president in '92 through '96.

Ralph Nader -- Ralph Nader didn't cause George -- Al Gore to lose in 2000. He competed for votes. Al Gore could have won those votes if he -- in a competition. But he didn't cost.

CAVUTO: All right.

VERNEY: What Al Gore that election was a poorly created ballot in Broward County, that some 10,000 votes went to Pat Buchanan that probably should have gone to Al Gore.

CAVUTO: We will never know. We will never know.

VERNEY: We won't ever know.

CAVUTO: OK.

VERNEY: But this is competition. And if they can't get the votes fair and square in competition, they don't deserve them.

CAVUTO: Russ Verney, thank you very much, my friend, the former Ross Perot campaign manager, made history, changed the way we look at third-party candidates.

Meanwhile, no wall, no funding, no way. I want you to meet the Democrat who says, no, Nancy, not quite -- or something like that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: You know, it isn't monolithic in the Democratic Party, just as it isn't monolithic in the Republican Party, when it comes to the wall or funding or $5.7 billion.

Freshman Democratic Congressman Ben McAdams is open on all these matters. He joins us right now.

Congressman, thanks for taking the time.

REP. BEN MCADAMS, D-UT: Thank you, Neil. Great to be on with you.

CAVUTO: It's good to have you.

So, let me get your sense of Nancy Pelosi saying no money for a wall. I'm paraphrasing here, sir. Do you agree with that?

MCADAMS: You know, I think what we really need to be talking about is border security.

Before I was elected to Congress, I was the mayor of Salt Lake County. And I would always say, we would -- we would take this conversation away from the divisive conversation of wall or no wall, and let's talk about what we need to do to protect the border.

Certainly, there are illegal drugs and trafficking coming across the border. That needs to be taken very seriously. And we need solutions to stop that. That probably includes technology.

CAVUTO: Is a wall among those solutions, Congressman?

MCADAMS: Yes, I think -- I think some physical barriers in strategic places has certainly got to be part of the solution.

In other places...

CAVUTO: So, why is a wall a problem for -- not -- some of your colleagues? Not all.

I must say, I have spoken to at least a dozen like you who have this view that the wall itself isn't the problem, but it's become a problem. Why?

MCADAMS: I think, on both sides, we're caught up in the symbolism of what that wall means.

CAVUTO: Yes.

MCADAMS: And let's just take a step back from that, and let's talk about the problem that we're trying to solve.

I think, if we can focus on that problem, there's a lot of common ground. We are worried about the drugs, the crime, everything at the border. And we need to come up with solutions that address that.

And I think, if we can reframe the conversation away from a wall or no wall, and talk about safety and security at the border, I think there's common ground. And that's -- that's going to be technology. I was meeting with somebody earlier today about thermal radar and some things like that.

You may have a technological wall in some places. You may have a physical barrier in other places. And I think comprehensive immigration reform at the end of the day has to be part of that too. Let's make...

CAVUTO: So, do you look at a wall, sir, to be immoral? Nancy Pelosi once referred to a wall as immoral.

MCADAMS: You know, I think, look, at the end of the day, a wall is -- it's a piece of infrastructure. It's bricks, and it's things like that.

And, certainly, on both sides, I think that's becoming more and more of a symbol.

CAVUTO: But she said it's an infrastructure that's immoral.

MCADAMS: Yes.

CAVUTO: Isn't that a little strong, or what do you think?

MCADAMS: Yes, I think that -- I think that is strong. I think that draws lines in the sand that make it -- that get in the way of actually negotiating and finding common ground.

I think there's common ground that we can find there.

CAVUTO: So, when the president talks about automatically going to maybe declaring an emergency along the border, when you still have two weeks to go to cobble together some sort of a deal, is that extreme?

MCADAMS: You know, I think what you see is a little bit both sides are moving further and further apart. And what we need is to come together and find out what unifies us. What points can we agree on?

And, as long as we're casting this conversation in one side wins by the other side losing, then we're never going to find common ground. We have got to find a win-win. The Democrats have to be willing to give. I think Republicans have to be willing to give a little bit. And let's find that middle ground that's going to keep the government open, protect our borders.

And then let's work towards a comprehensive solution on immigration. Let's make it so that people can immigrate here legally, and not -- and not illegally.

CAVUTO: A lot of common sense.

Congressman, thank you very much for taking the time. I appreciate it.

MCADAMS: Thank you, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right, meanwhile, people are gearing up for the big game this Sunday. I think it's called the Super Bowl.

But it's Monday that's got a lot of bosses worried.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: The big game this weekend.

A lot of viewers are saying, you know, you guys at Fox are not fair to the New England Patriots. You say they're the most hated team in America.

By the way, they are.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: But this guy begs to differ.

He's comedian, lifelong Patriots fan Lenny Clarke. He's in Atlanta, where all this goes down in a little more than 48 hours.

Now, in case you're oddly not familiar with Lenny, I don't mean to put pressure on the guy, but he's off-the-charts fast on his feet, a comedian, actor, general Beantown legend, famous for his thick Boston accent that's been immortalized in the role of Uncle Teddy on the hit series "Rescue Me," so much more.

It's a real honor to have you. I'm a very big fan, Lenny. Thank you for coming.

LENNY CLARKE, COMEDIAN: Neil, you know how I feel about you. I leave the state to come on your show.

It's a shame you're only on for an hour, because if you don't have the Fox Business Channel, demand it!

CAVUTO: All right, just so you know, this is the Fox News Channel right now.

CLARKE: Too much?

CAVUTO: FOX Business was earlier, but that's OK.

CLARKE: I know it is news.

CAVUTO: I understand.

CLARKE: Yes. No, but I know it, OK, good.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: So this -- you hear about all this stuff. I know you're a big New Englander and all that stuff. But what is it about the Patriots I think 99 percent of Americans hate?

CLARKE: Yes, absolutely.

And we're not going to stop until we have 100 percent of America that hate the Patriots. We're going to win a couple more. It's incredible. I mean, I love Robert Kraft. I was friends with him when he was a fan, and then he bought the team, then, of course, being friends with Bill and Tom Brady.

It's great. Oh, it's a great time to be a Patriot fan.

CAVUTO: Lenny, how do New Englanders, how do those in Boston area, how do they feel about all the abuse heaped on them? And I guess they have got a reason to feel cocky, I mean, after the Red Sox won another World Series and now this.

What is it?

CLARKE: It's bizarre. That's what it is.

I think it's something in the water, Neil. I really do. We're crazy people. But we got a great sports town. And we like to win. People are talking about, well, what about, if they win, should we declare it a national holiday?

No. Only if your city wins the day, you get the day off. If not, go to work, loser. You lost!

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: OK.

So, apparently, 17 million Americans are going to call out sick on Monday. And I'm wondering, maybe if you're one of the teams involved as a fan, maybe, but what do you think of that?

CLARKE: I think it's great. Are you kidding me?

Listen, if you -- you're going to be up, you're going to be having a great time, you are going to have a wicked party, Neil. It's got to be wicked (INAUDIBLE) if we win this one.

CAVUTO: OK. Got you.

CLARKE: And, well, maybe they won't let us go to work. We will still be partying.

CAVUTO: Now, when you get ready for a big event like this, you're a huge fan, a big sports fan -- the whole town is, right?

So do you do anything special? Like, when you're in Atlanta, what do you do?

CLARKE: Neil, it's about 75 degrees, and I'm wearing this fur coat because they have never lost when I wear this coat. As a matter of fact, it's the only thing I got from the first divorce.

(LAUGHTER)

CLARKE: And we're going to win again because of the coat.

(LAUGHTER)

CLARKE: Fear the fur.

CAVUTO: All right.

Now, what is the deal also with Tom Brady? Now, he's like 78 years old, right? And he is still incredible. He's got apparently a very special diet.

CLARKE: And handsome.

CAVUTO: Timing of when he eat stuff.

CLARKE: Oh, yes.

CAVUTO: Do you practice that yourself?

CLARKE: Yes, I follow the TB12 diet. I have lost 72 pounds this month alone. It works.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Now, he's indicated he's not going to retire. He's not going to retire. He still plans to keep playing. He's in more than enough good shape, to add to all the young guys.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: What will happen to New England when he does?

CLARKE: Oh, well, we will fall apart. Are you kidding? That will be horrible. We don't want him to leave. I want him throwing until he's using crutches. He's unbelievable. Let him play.

I mean, he's an old guy. We're old. How can you hate the Patriots? We're just a bunch of old people.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: I'm sure you will find someone else who could cheat.

CLARKE: Don't you like the elderly?

CAVUTO: Yes, there must be someone else who can cheat at the game, right? There are others behind him.

CLARKE: Oh, no. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Talk about cheating. Hey, I'm glad we're not playing New Orleans.

(LAUGHTER)

CLARKE: How was that call? Did you see that one, Neil?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: That is just -- that is raw. You hit a raw...

(CROSSTALK)

CLARKE: ... deserves to be here.

CAVUTO: Oh, man.

CLARKE: I know it's about -- hey, Neil, I have seen three L.A. fans here. They don't even go to their home games. You think they're going to from L.A. to Atlanta? It's not happening.

CAVUTO: We shall see. We shall see.

We will have more after this.

CLARKE: We will see. I know. OK.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Do you have a problem with a wall, yes or no?

REP. HENRY CUELLAR, D-TX: Yes, I do. It's a 14th century solution.

It's a 14th century solution to a 21st century problem.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, many in your party voted for that 14th century solution.

CUELLAR: I want to see, how we do stop -- how do we stop drugs and people from coming in?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: Well, at least we saved time talking over one another.

But, man, oh, man, we got a lot of mail and comments and texts and everything on that one exchange.

And my buddy Dion Baia is here to go through some of the more notable comments.

You know, Dion, what was interesting about this issue is the congressman, wonderful human being though he is, never really addressed the issue.

DION BAIA, CORRESPONDENT: That's correct, Neil, yes.

Apparently, your little chat with Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar got a lot of viewers boiling mad, especially when he called the wall a 14th century solution.

We got Brian, who tweets: "Tell them to remove the locks from his car, his house and cars."

Interesting.

CAVUTO: Interesting analogy.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: Byron: "The wheel was invented in 3500 B.C. Should we stop using the wheel?"

CAVUTO: Imagine if we did.

BAIA: Geez, where would we be? It would be all square today. Yes. Yes.

MarkB28: "Even if it is, what better way is there to physically mark the line that is the border as not to be crossed without permission? Drones don't mark a border. Satellites or sensors don't make it clear to a pedestrian. Cameras will do it. That -- cameras won't do that job."

CAVUTO: I understand what he's getting at.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: He's a little angry, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: I will tone it down next time.

CAVUTO: Understood.

BAIA: OK.

RM: "I don't know Cuellar called -- came on Neil's show. Neil continually asked him, would he support a wall? Cuellar would not answer."

CAVUTO: He never did. He never did.

And that's the problem. They talk past each other.

Now, a close second to that issue, Dion, had to be the arrest of Roger Stone. There were more feds and even Navy SEALs there to arrest him than there were to take down Usama bin Laden. And apparently viewers found that just weird.

BAIA: Yes, yes.

Donna writes: "No matter what your angle, look at this whole quagmire. It was overkill, period."

CAVUTO: It was, a little.

BAIA: Yes, it was a little much.

CAVUTO: He didn't warrant that, 66-year-old guy.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: Yes, yes, in the middle of the night.

Ryan: "Give me a break. Why does anyone feel sorry for Roger Stone?"

CAVUTO: Well, only guy who got this kind of treatment, right?

BAIA: Correct.

Boombastic: "We get it. It was drastic. But four days of news coverage? Good God."

Little reflection there.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, but he's back in the news now.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: He's going up and doing stuff and trying to get some stuff going on.

So, American: "Hope they raid your home next."

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: That's totally unnecessary.

BAIA: Not my words, Neil. Yes, no, no, I slipped that one in.

CAVUTO: That is one that you definitely wrote.

Were there any other pearls of wisdom? Because you selected these e-mails and texts, and none of them are very fair and balanced, to me.

BAIA: You want to go there? OK, OK.

Josh: "Loosen the tie a little bit. It's like your head is going to pop. Just kidding. Great show. You're not overweight. You're husky."

CAVUTO: Really?

BAIA: Not my words, Neil. Not my words. You're a pussycat to me.

CAVUTO: OK, fine.

BAIA: Who loves you, baby? Telly loves you.

CAVUTO: Fine.

BAIA: OK.

Michael: "Neil, you're a fat fellow who acknowledges it."

CAVUTO: Oh!

BAIA: "We dig get for that," with a little smiley face and a half-wink, which means it makes it all OK.

CAVUTO: Well, by the way, they know the camera adds 50 pounds.

BAIA: Of course.

CAVUTO: Until they see me in person. Right.

BAIA: Yes, I'm only 50 pounds wet.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: D.Oreo: "Neil is like a good whiskey, smooth, but can bite you."

I know that from experience.

CAVUTO: Sure. Absolutely.

BAIA: Yes, of course. Of course. I don't know what that means.

OK, Daniel: "He's a fathead. You make a bobblehead of Neil, all it would do is fall over."

(LAUGHTER)

BAIA: "Still love the show, though."

You see at the end there how they did that? Not my words, Neil, but they gave you that little backhanded comment.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Yes, I got it.

BAIA: Mary: "I think he hates Trump and is frequently wrong -- wrong about the economy. Today's numbers prove that. I still love Neil and watch the show as often as I can, though. And although -- he's on all the time, so it's hard not to watch him."

You are on a lot.

CAVUTO: That's not my wife writing that?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: And then, by the way...

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: She's like, why doesn't he ever come home? He's never here. Where is he?

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: All right, what else do we have?

Oh, look at this guy.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: A guy named Connell McShane.

CAVUTO: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: "In my view, Cavuto works too hard. I always root for him to take a day off, because I love when -- that young man with the Irish-sounding name who fills in for him on FBN."

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: I don't know who this McShane is, but he's...

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: That's not an Irish impression either.

OK, John: "I quit watching a year ago. I think SOS nowadays same old..."

CAVUTO: Stop. Stop. Stop. Yes. Yes.

BAIA: "Day after day. If you televise your next heart surgery, I just might tune in."

Not my words again, Neil.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: What?

BAIA: Yes, that would be exciting.

CAVUTO: This is when I had open-heart surgery. And I was like Zorro in the hospital.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: I like the cape.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: I need to run around. Put him back in bed. Put him back in bed.

CAVUTO: Stop.

You would think that people would feel sorry for me.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But there's very little residual value there.

BAIA: Yes, look at this.

(CROSSTALK)

BAIA: This is so lovely. Look at that.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: These are my friends. These are my colleagues.

BAIA: And you were back within like 15 hours. Yes.

BAIA: You were back on air, running.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Maybe a day or two.

BAIA: The Six Million Dollar Man. We have the technology.

CAVUTO: Anything else you want to...

BAIA: I do have a book out called "Blood in the Streets."

CAVUTO: Really? Oh, wow.

BAIA: Yes. It's on Amazon, paperback, e-book and audio book.

CAVUTO: Really? Not a cookbook.

BAIA: Not a cookbook, Neil.

CAVUTO: Not a cookbook.

BAIA: No, no, no, no, no, not my -- not my kind -- no, not a cookbook, a thriller.

CAVUTO: And "Blood in the Streets."

BAIA: Yes. Yes.

CAVUTO: It sounds a lot like this segment.

BAIA: It does sound a lot like this segment, my first and last appearance on this show, yes.

CAVUTO: It's a great book. And you're a very funny man.

BAIA: Always a pleasure.

CAVUTO: That was the first and probably the last time we will try this.

BAIA: Yes, yes.

CAVUTO: Touche for you. Your agent is calling, very worried.

BAIA: Yes, your last day. Pick the check up on the way out.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: All right.

Well, if you can't have fun laughing at yourself, then just laugh with everybody else.

Thank you, Dion, very, very much.

This is the kind of stuff that we get into now and then on this show. We don't take ourselves too, too seriously. We take the news seriously. And there's certainly enough of that.

And we will be on top of that and a lot more tomorrow, when we go live at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, the latest on a potential shutdown, the latest on the trade talks, the latest on the back and forth with the Mueller probe.

You name it, we are live, two hours, beginning tomorrow. We will see you then.

Write us about it.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.