New focus on campaign funds as Democratic 2020 candidates battle it out

close

Video

New focus on campaign funds as Democratic 2020 candidates battle it out

UVA Center for Politics professor Larry Sabato and Washington Free Beacon senior writer Liz Harrington on the battle for campaign cash.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," March 18, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, ANCHOR: Well, think about it. Money, it's what all the candidates want, but precious really ever have or ever get, money, the kind of money that can give you an edge, sometimes instantly, and if you are one Beto O'Rourke, the kind of money that can set you apart instantly.

It gives your critics pause, because say what you will of his spotty resume, Beto is anything but spotty coming out the gate. More than six million bucks raised in first 24 hours as a presidential candidate. Better than Bernie. Better than Kamala. So far better than anybody.  Historically, even better than Barack, as in Barack Obama, when he started his trip to the White House.

That was then. What is happening now?

Welcome, everybody. I'll Neil Cavuto, and this is "Your World."

Now, if Beto has got the dough, does he also have the mo', as in momentum?  Will Joe Biden see a run for his money, should he decide to enter this presidential race?

And is money going to ultimately whittle down a crowd that right now is running potentially into the dozens? That may be getting ahead of ourselves. But here is something that is not. They are pouring money fast and loose in campaigns that need it fast and furious, and they are getting it, particularly in the O'Rourke camp.

FBN's Deirdre Bolton has been following all of this -- Deirdre.

DEIRDRE BOLTON, FOX BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Neil, this was a first today record number. You called it. That's $6.1 million online in the first 24 hours of Beto O'Rourke's official campaign announcement.

And according to his spokesperson, someone on his team, he says the money came in without a dime from political action committees or corporations or special interests.

Now, as a comparison point, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders raised slightly less in his first 24 hours, $5.9 million, so pretty close. And most agree that Sanders is really going to be the one who sets the pace for 2020 grassroots donations.

So, Bernie Sanders took in more than $10 million in his first week. And we should note, most of that is coming from small donors. You mentioned some of the other candidates, Neil. Their respective launches all within a range. So you have California senator Kamala Harris, also Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, they were around a million, a million and a half for their first 24 hours.

The two governors who are in the race, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, three days, he had a million dollars. So it took them a little longer to make that watermark. And then the former Governor of Colorado John Hickenlooper, he raised about a million dollars. It took him 48 hours.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, the slowest start out of the gate. But this is not completely a fair comparison, because when she announced she was considering running. She raised about $300,000. We don't have accurate numbers as to the first official 24 hours.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, as well, officially entered the race via an announcement on video this Sunday. We're still waiting to tally those up.  But you mentioned the former V.P., Joe Biden. He was at an event on Saturday in Delaware, saying, I have the most progressive record of anybody running for the -- anybody who would run -- I didn't mean -- and then he chuckled, and he made a sign of the cross on his chest.

So it's not official that Biden is in the race yet, but President Trump, as we know, did weigh in with this tweet: "Joe Biden got tongue-tied over the weekend when he was unable to properly deliver a very simple line about his decision to run for president. Get used to it. Another low-I.Q. individual."

So that is the point of view from President Trump on former Vice President Joe Biden. Neil, we're still early days, but this is going to be interesting -- back to you.

CAVUTO: Did he really tweet that, another low-I.Q. individual?

BOLTON: He most certainly did, yes.

And we know that Joe Biden, love him or hate him, he is able to laugh at himself, which he certainly showed at that event in Delaware.

CAVUTO: Yes.

BOLTON: But I'm going to assume this 2020 race is going to take an extra layer of humor, self-deprecating humor.

CAVUTO: I think so. All right. Thank you very, very much.

BOLTON: Sure.

CAVUTO: So, does money matter?

Well, to a lot of historians, at least in the early going, it does. And, again, if you are raising it in small sums, that begets the attention to those who hand out bigger sums to you. Barack Obama found out back in 2007-2008, and the rest, as you know, is history.

Speaking of which, to history professor extraordinaire, bestselling author Larry Sabato at the UVA Center for Politics, and The Washington Free Beacon's Liz Harrington.

Professor, let me begin with you.

Do you pay attention to this as an early barometer of support? How do you look at it?

LARRY SABATO, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CENTER FOR POLITICS:  Absolutely.

Anybody who doesn't pay attention would be crazy. And any campaign that tells you today they wouldn't want to have Beto O'Rourke number, or for that matter, Bernie Sanders' number, fund-raising number, they're lying, because you do want that extra money.

But it is not the alpha and the omega of politics. You can end up winning with less money if you have the right message and if you hit the rate wave right in the election year. But, yes, you would rather have more money, and it's something we all look at.

CAVUTO: It's interesting too, Liz, because, obviously, if you're looking to raise money and even bigger sums of money, I guess you have to prove to a lot of the big money guys in each party, in this case, the Democratic Party, you can get and generate that kind of interest.

Beto O'Rourke has. And I'm wondering if that gives him sort of a boost that other campaigns, with the exception of Sanders that already routinely enjoys this, don't have.

LIZ HARRINGTON, THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON: Well, it does.

But I would agree with Larry. Money, it isn't the be-all/end-all, because we saw, in 2016, Hillary outspent Trump 2-1. And all the money in the world couldn't convince the American people to like her or to trust her.

But the small-dollar donations, that's what shows where the energy is within the Democratic Party. And that's with Bernie and that's with Beto.  But Bernie, he is who he is. There's an authenticity about him that people like, even if that's him authentically liking the Soviet Union.

But Beto, I'm not so sure he knows who he is. I mean, just two weeks ago, he was off on the road trying to find himself writing in his journal. We don't know whether to call him Rob O'Rourke, when he was captain of the crew team or Psychedelic Warlord when he was this computer hacker.

But now he's settled on Beto. And so we have already seen him coming out with this campaign it isn't the smoothest launch. He's already having to apologize, change positions on health care, apologize for his white privilege. It's not the smoothest rollout.

So he -- there's a lot of energy behind him, but he's -- there's also going to be a lot of targets on his back because of that energy. And he's not handling it too well so far.

CAVUTO: Well, success can do that, right? Early success, the appearance of success, and very different on a national stage than obviously a state one.

But, Larry, another thing I'm reminded, I remember the presidential race of Phil Gramm, and he famously said money is the mother's milk of politics.  And he had a lot of it, I believe at the time more than any of the other candidates. Didn't do him a lot of good. John Connally, similarly, running with a big money lead, and, of course, I think he got all of one delegate for that.

So we should be careful, right?

SABATO: Absolutely. And you cited two superb examples.

And also Gramm and Connally relied on big money, big contributions. What's significant about Sanders and O'Rourke and some of the other Democrats is, they're getting this money in small gifts, $25, $50, $100.

Why does that matter? Because you can hit them again and again and again and again. They're committed. They have skin in the game. And they could give $50 a month from now until the end of the election, or maybe they double it as you get close to the Election Day. The excitement carries them to a higher number.

So that's why small givers are preferred to big givers.

CAVUTO: Gotcha.

You know, we're looking live now at Beto O'Rourke. He's at a political event in Cleveland, Ohio.

And, Liz, I'm reminded of the fact that the president is already focused on the candidate's hand gestures. And maybe that's the sign the president's worried or maybe that's his way of saying welcome to the race.

He's done this to low-energy Jeb Bush and little Marco and lying Ted. I mean, when they enter the field, it's pretty soon that he starts fielding the characterizations. What do you think?

HARRINGTON: Yes. Yes, I'm sure he will come with more, but that is his initial reaction.

And it's interesting, because Trump's comments on the hand gestures was actually the biggest jump in Google searches about Beto, period. So Trump still can drive the conversation.

CAVUTO: Yes.

HARRINGTON: And I'm sure he's going to come up with lots more nicknames for the all the candidates, I'm sure.

CAVUTO: How do you think this is all going to go, Larry?

SABATO: I think we're going to have an extremely expensive campaign with somewhere around 20 Democratic candidates. And then we will go into the general election, and in November 2020, a president will be elected for four years.

And I'm sticking with that, Neil.

CAVUTO: Let me write that down. A president will be...

SABATO: Yes.

CAVUTO: Got it, all right.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: Guys, thank you both very, very much.

HARRINGTON: You bet.

CAVUTO: So, we will follow Beto.

We will follow all of these guys.

Also following Boeing. The stock dropped big time again today, now growing indications that it might have had a role in just trying to push through or strong-arm its 737 jetliners altogether.

Is that true? After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, it's been more than a week now, a week ago yesterday, since that Ethiopian Airlines crash.

And now we're getting data from the black boxes, we're told, that says that what happened in that particular flight seemed a mimic one that happened on Lion Air, when that went down some six months earlier, last fall in Indonesia.

Doug McKelway has been connecting the dots in Washington -- Doug.

DOUG MCKELWAY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Neil.

And focus on the Ethiopian Airlines crash has now turned at least in part to Washington, because The Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning that federal prosecutors and the Department of Transportation's inspector general are both probing the development of the Boeing 737 MAX 8 and whether there were improprieties with the certification of the plane at the FAA.

The Journal reports that, on March 11, the day after the crash, a grand jury issued a wide-ranging subpoena for documentation and e-mail correspondence. It is highly unusual, The Journal, says for prosecutors to delve into regulatory approval of a commercial airliner.

Separately, the black boxes are revealing some initial findings that point to similarities between the Ethiopian crash and the Lion Air crash five months before. The data shows the MCAS automated system designed to lower the plane's pitch in the event of a stall was turned on.

The tail flaps trimmed down to force the nose down, just as in the Lion Air crash. But in the Lion Air crash, we also know that the MCAS was acting on bad data from a malfunctioning sensor that indicates the planes's pitch and angle of attack.

In a statement yesterday, Boeing's CEO said -- quote -- "Boeing is finalizing its development of a previously announced software update in response to erroneous sensor inputs."

Pilot training may also prove to be a contributory cause. The MCAS system is easily turned off with two switches on the center console by the pilot's thigh. Turning it off would have set the flaps and the trim tabs to a normal position.

The first officer on the Ethiopian Airlines flight had only 200 hours in the MAX 8 cockpit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK DOMBROFF, AVIATION ATTORNEY: That is outrageous. In our country, airlines that are out there, all the airlines, have high-time pilots in the left seat, and a minimum -- there's an FAA-mandated minimum, whether one wants to believe it's too high or not, of 1,500 hours for the right seat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCKELWAY: And, Neil, I'm also told that the cockpit voice recorder is now fully downloaded.

It's been taken back to Ethiopia for translation there -- back to you, Neil.

CAVUTO: All right. Thank you, my friend, very, very much.

And then there's a separate issue of investigations here back at home regarding Boeing itself, not the jet in question, but Boeing itself, that it might have had too much sway in the vetting process for these jets with approving officials.

A former NTSB board member, John Goglia, joins us right now.

John, good to have you back.

JOHN GOGLIA, FORMER MEMBER, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD: Thank you for having me.

CAVUTO: Now, if the argument here, I think, is that the plane wasn't as scrutinized as maybe other models would be, maybe given the success of the 737 in the aggregate, or Boeing pushing it through, does that sound familiar to you, or what do you think?

GOGLIA: Well, we -- there have been allegations of that kind of influence in the past.

But the FAA has not been found -- just the opposite. The FAA has not been found to be too cozy on those issues. So, we will have to wait and see what comes out of this investigation. It's pretty broad-based. So it's going to touch a lot of different areas.

And, although I personally don't think that Boeing would have that kind of influence, one never knows.

CAVUTO: I'm going to ask you a couple of more cynical questions. And it's only cynical because I know from where this data and research we're getting is coming from.

First, on the study the black boxes, the French are doing it. That's fine.  But the French, of course, are big investors in Airbus industry, a maker of competitive products. Again, I don't want to be jaded about it. But would it be out of the realm of possibility that they would be particularly harsh or draw conclusions that were too early to draw on this data?

GOGLIA: Well, that's always been the concern.

We know that -- we're pretty clear that, in the past, they have gone lightly on some of Airbus accidents. But if they just read the boxes out and gave the raw data to Ethiopia, then one would expect that the data would be accurate.

And, fortunately, the investigators that are usually pretty focused, and they don't pay attention to all the noise that is generated either by the politicians or by the press.

CAVUTO: Yes, especially the press. There's the nasty ones, John.

So let me ask you about this pressure that happens when you try to get a vehicle to be cleared for takeoff, no pun intended, and you have an impeccable safety record prior. How much do authorities weigh that when approving a new or revamped version of, let's say, the same 737, a different model?

GOGLIA: In my experience, not -- they don't put a lot of faith in what happened before.

You're making a change to the system, they're going to shake out the system. And to that end, we're impeaching the delegation process that the FAA uses. But I have been told over and over again by companies that the delegates that the FAA blesses to do the review are usually tougher on the company than the FAA inspectors are, because they know more.

And that's one of the reasons why they FAA has chosen to give them the power of delegation. The FAA still has to pass and review. But these people are among the most knowledgeable on whatever the system is.

So I don't think we can we can do away with that system, unless we're prepared to drastically increase the funding for the FAA.

CAVUTO: John Goglia, thank you very much. Good chatting again.

GOGLIA: Thanks for having me.

CAVUTO: In the meantime, on my weekend show, "Cavuto Live," this past weekend, the Angel Mom who lost her son to an illegal immigrant had a message to those 12 Republican senators who voted against the president's national emergency.

We will sort of clean it up after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SABINE DURDEN, ANGEL MOM: I had to stand in line. I had to pay. I had to go through the proper procedures to be here, to earn my citizenship. I didn't skip lines. My son didn't either.

And it's just not fair. And for Schumer and those 12 traitors -- that's what I call them -- that went against our president, we remember you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAVUTO: All right, that was Angel Mom Sabine Durden on "Cavuto Live" this past weekend.

And her son Dominic was killed by an illegal immigrant back in 2012. There was a car accident. He had a truck. The son was in a motorcycle. There was no chance.

She's not happy with the 12 Republican senators who voted against the president's national emergency and worries about the prospect of any of them even thinking of overriding the president's veto.

The judge is with us right now, Judge Andrew Napolitano.

As things stand right now, Judge -- good to have you -- we don't have, we're told from the White House, a sense that they think the votes are there for an override to succeed. Is that your view?

ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, there are Republicans in the Senate who voted to endorse the president who nevertheless feel that the government, the Congress has given away too much of its power to the president.

Do I think they're going to vote to override the veto? Some. Do I think there's enough to get the 67? I don't. In fact, I don't even think there's going to be a vote in the Senate, because if the House fails to override, that's the end of it. The issue is then teed up before a federal charges.

I don't know which judge in which court, but some federal judge will make the first move on this. And eventually it'll be probably make its way to the Supreme Court.

But every time, every time the Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether the Congress can give away some of its power to either the judiciary or the president, it has said no, it can't. Only the Constitution could make that kind of a change.

Presidential power comes only from the Constitution, not from Congress.

CAVUTO: So, it's not over one way or the other?

(CROSSTALK)

NAPOLITANO: No, I don't think it's over at all.

However, Mike Lee, Senator Mike Lee of Utah, who really labored mightily for two weeks trying to come up with a happy compromise, offered legislation that seemed to have the support of a majority of the Senate which would have allowed President Trump to get away with spending unappropriated money this time, but barred it in the future for more than 30 days.

The president said he would veto that legislation. So then Senator Lee withdrew it, voted with 11 others against the president. The legislation is still there.

CAVUTO: Right.

NAPOLITANO: In fact, the legislation has the support of Mitch McConnell, so the question is not will it support -- will it pass the Senate, but will there be 67 votes in the Senate, which would make it veto-proof?

CAVUTO: Does the president have this power, though? It could be shot down, but does he have this power?

NAPOLITANO: No.

CAVUTO: OK. So let me ask you this.

A judge says, you went too far. Does that mean whatever wall building is going on they have to stop? And then how would they delineate between that wall building already funded with the $1.5 billion approved in Congress vs. the added monies he wants to do more?

NAPOLITANO: That's why you have juries and you have fact-finding.

So I would think the court would enjoin the president immediately, and then either the president's challengers, whoever the plaintiffs are -- could be a member of Congress -- and the departments of Homeland Security and Defense will agree, this project was authorized two years ago, and that can continue. This is the new stuff that the president's doing that the court enjoined.

But, remember, a lot of this, the first step is not building the wall.  It's condemning private property on which the wall is to be built. And that process can't be done overnight, because that involves a trial in state court as to the value of the real estate.

CAVUTO: So let's say a judge shoots this down, it's appealed. Does everything have to hold while this is all being litigated? Or if one court says, yes, fine, continue, do you go right back to the wall and start building again? What do you do?

NAPOLITANO: I don't know the answer to that.

But the chief justice of the United States has been very good, when there are numerous challenges to the same governmental behavior, and they're before many courts, to consolidate them all in one court before one judge.

So I don't think we're going to have a judge in one part of Texas saying yes, a judge in another part of Texas or California saying no.

CAVUTO: All right, real quickly, this is the week, we're told -- and we have been teased before -- we're going to get a Mueller report.

Regardless of whether this is the week it happens, do you think it would be released for all the world to see?

NAPOLITANO: I don't.

I think there are parts of it that the attorney general, who is a very smart guy, knows that federal statutes will not permit him to release. For example, if Bob Mueller brought witnesses to testify before a grand jury against a person, and that person wasn't indicted, that is kept secret in order to protect the reputation of that person.

If undercover agents testified under their real names or under pseudonyms, that testimony is kept secret. So I don't think all of it will come out.  I think a great deal of it well, but not all.

And, by the way, if it comes out this week, out means it goes from one building in the Justice Department to another, for the attorney general's team to assess it. And that could take weeks or even months before that assessment...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But it would leak out in the interim, wouldn't it?

NAPOLITANO: It depends on how many people know about it.

Bob Mueller's people have been flawless about preventing leaks.

CAVUTO: Yes, you're right.

NAPOLITANO: No leak has come from that office whatsoever that I'm aware of in the nearly two years he's been in business.

CAVUTO: All right. Judge, stick to this law thing. I think it's very promising for you.

NAPOLITANO: You think so?

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: I think so. I do.

Andrew Napolitano, thank you very, very much.

NAPOLITANO: You're welcome.

CAVUTO: All right, in the meantime, we're -- knowing that the president is not a fan of what Mary Barra at General Motors did when she laid off those workers at an Ohio plant, he wants that plant up and running.

Either she sell it, do something, someone else would take advantage of it, but he is knee-deep and what seems to be a corporate, private matter. Or is it?

After this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Is Apple on the verge of making its own flip phone? We're told that it's cooler, hipper, smaller, more usable for an American audience.  They say nothing about an Asian one.

We're back in 60.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, the president not accepting what GM's decision was months ago to close that Lordstown, Ohio, plant, already tweeting out that he'd like to see that reversed, and fast, and that Mary Barra, the CEO, shouldn't wait around at all.

To John Roberts at the White House on the latest.

Hey, John.

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon to you, Neil.

Obviously, Ohio is a very important state for the president. And there is that little thing called the presidential election next year, so the president particularly anxious to hang on two jobs that are being lost in Ohio.

And it's not just that the Lordstown, Ohio, GM plant. They lost a Kmart distribution center. There was also a hospital that was closed. So the president tweeting at Mary Barra and the UAW today to say -- quote -- "General Motors and the UAW are going to start talks in September, October." That would be about the final status of the Lordstown plant.

"Why wait? Start them now. I want jobs to stay in the USA and want Lordstown, in one of the best economies in our history, opened or sold to a company who will open it up fast. Car companies are all coming back to the U.S. So is everyone else. We now have the best economy in the world. The envy of all. Get that big, beautiful plant in Ohio open now. Close the plant in China or Mexico, where you invested so heavily pre-Trump, but not in the USA. Bring jobs home."

Kellyanne Conway earlier today expounded on the president's frame of mind when it comes to this plant closing. Listen here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY, TRUMP SENIOR ADVISER: He wants them to come to the table before that. He's in -- the urgency the president feels is that he wants the auto companies to continue to stay here and return here because he knows that that is a bedrock part of the U.S. economy and continue to be.

So when you tell a businessman non-politician we're going to meet seven months from now, he's just saying, can we accelerate and have the meeting sometimes faster?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: And there could be potentially more pain ahead for the auto industry. The president is now a month into considering whether or not to impose tariffs of up to 25 percent on imported cars and car parts.

The Commerce Department delivered a report on whether imported cars and parts present a national security risk to the United States so-called Section 232 report. The president has got 90 days to decide what to do.

He's trying, of course, to use the threat of tariffs as leverage on new trade deals. But there are real fears here in the United States that imposing tariffs could really hurt the auto industry. And there's a lot of opposition about a mile down Pennsylvania Avenue to what the president might do in terms of tariffs.

There was a report from the Center for Automotive Research last July that found that as many as two million cars may not be produced, and as many as 700,000 jobs could be lost because of these tariffs. There was a real wide range in there, though, so nobody really knows what could happen.

But the president is getting a lot of pressure to not go ahead with these tariffs. He's headed, by the way, to Ohio in a couple of days, Neil. He is going to be going up to the Abrams tank plant there in Lima, Ohio, so we will probably hear a lot more from him, since that is the UAW plant, about the situation with GM closing that plant.

CAVUTO: All right, John Roberts, thank you very much, John Roberts at the White House.

ROBERTS: You bet.

CAVUTO: It is rare you see a president of the United States intervene in whatever an individual company is doing. They will speak broadly about the sector or what have you.

But this past weekend proved just how involved the president can be, not just on the GM case and personally wanting to ground Boeing's jets, the ones that are in question in these latest accidents, but even talking about things like the FOX lineup, what anchors he likes and doesn't like, and "Saturday Night Live" and whether those -- that show should be scrutinized by the government.

So is that the role of a president, or is that typical of this president and it works for him?

FOX News contributor Gianno Caldwell, Democratic strategist Kristen Hawn, and The Washington Examiner's Phil Wegmann.

Phil, he inserted himself into a lot of areas some would say are not presidential or something he shouldn't do, delegate maybe, have others do.  What do you think?

PHILIP WEGMANN, REALCLEARPOLITICS: Well, I think two years into this presidency, this isn't going to shock us , because we know that this president consumes a lot of media.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that he's going to be a critic of that same media. I think that something that is kind of interesting about his talk about the FOX lineup is, for so long, the criticism of FOX has been that there's not enough of a distinction between the opinion side and the news side.

But clearly the president sees that distinction, in that he was going after news anchors, while boosting some of the more opinion shows. So clearly he sees the difference and he has his favorites.

CAVUTO: All right, he clearly does.

Kristen, the one thing that came in the mix today -- none of that really registered with me. But what did is the criticisms of John McCain, not once, but twice.

The guy's dead. Whatever you think about him, leave it. You're the president of the United States. I understand there is bad blood between you even now, but leave it. And he can't.

KRISTEN HAWN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, I'm not sure exactly what's going on. It seemed a little bit unhinged me.

I mean, to go after him, he's been -- he's been dead for about six months.  And that had to be painful for McCain's family as well. So I was kind of looking through all the different items that he addressed over the weekend.  And that was one of the more shocking ones.

CAVUTO: Gianno, that is to points you have raised on this show, elsewhere, and what Phil touched on. We have gotten used to that and all.

But I dare say, I mean, he -- it gets in the way some of the other stuff that is clearly a success, the economy, the job momentum, whether you want to give the president all the credit We certainly will blame the president if it's not going well, and that this steps on that message, this kind of stuff steps on it.

What do you think?

GIANNO CALDWELL, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: I completely and totally agree.

And I think one thing that you have done, Neil, is you have certainly made mention in monologues about what the president has said and what he didn't say and what was true and what wasn't true.

And I think that's so important that we do that, especially in this particular day and age. Now, the thing is, President Trump has accomplished a lot of great things. Certainly, we talk about the unemployment rate across spectrums, African-American, Hispanic, those are all good things.

You talk about the fact that he said that he was going to bring jobs back to the U.S. and car companies, and people said that that wouldn't be possible, it wouldn't happen. But yet we are seeing that it's happening.  So those are some very positive things that he's done.

But as I mentioned on this show, as you mentioned earlier, certainly, when he gets to talking about something like someone's face, or making kind of really petty remarks, that drives away from his message, and certainly drives the news coverage in another way.

And that's part of the reason why I think...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But maybe, Gianno, that's his intention, right?

I mean, if you suddenly mention a low-I.Q. Joe Biden, you're taking the focus off of yourself if, for example, this is the week the Mueller report comes out.

CALDWELL: Well, I think that's important when you're talking about political opponents in that way. I think that's great. He should talk about political opponents in whatever way.

But the problem is, he doesn't just do that with political opponents.

CAVUTO: Right.

CALDWELL: And the fact that matter is, people see great success in his administration, but they also want a president they can feel good about.  And that's where it becomes problematic for this president.

CAVUTO: Phil, is it going to hurt him if he continues it, or, to your point, we're just used to it?

WEGMANN: Well, so I talked to a lot of lawmakers in Wisconsin this last week, talking about whether or not Republicans can win that state in 2020.

And two congressmen in particular, Representative Sean Duffy in the more rural north part of the state, and then also Jim Sensenbrenner, who is in the suburbs of Milwaukee, both of these guys said that in order to win both rural voters and suburban voters at the same time that you need to talk about policies, not necessarily personalities.

So this is something that Republican members are taking a very close look at moving forward to 2020. And they seem to be on one side of the issue.  They would like him to talk about the economy.

CAVUTO: Kristen, I think the line I heard from a lot of people, they like the economy -- talking about voters -- they like the economy, like what's going on. They don't like him. And the Democrats want to seize on the don't like him part.

I don't know how true that is. But what do you think?

CALDWELL: Especially suburban women.

CAVUTO: Yes.

Kristen.

HAWN: I think -- I agree. And if the midterm is any indication about suburban women, I think that's true. People vote with their heart. We know that they're emotional about it.

And so I think that the president, actually, I mean, he's gotten away with calling his -- you're saying it's OK to say whatever you want about his political opponents. I think that we should stop short of calling people names, like he did last time around.

I'm not sure that that's going to -- that that's going to play well for him again. He does have a very dedicated base, though, so we will just have to see.

CAVUTO: But that base will only get you so far.

HAWN: Yes.

CALDWELL: Yes.

CAVUTO: All right, guys, I want to thank you all very, very much.

We have a deadly attack in the Netherlands to tell you about. That kind of stuff doesn't end, does it?

The latest after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: At least three people are known dead right now after an attack on a tram in the Dutch city of Utrecht.

Greg Palkot in London with the very latest.

Hey, Greg.

GREG PALKOT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Neil.  Yes, the latest word from the authorities just in the past couple hours is the man thought to be responsible for this attack is now under arrest.  Authorities say that three people were killed, five people injured, three seriously, when he opened up fire in a tram, a street car, at a busy intersection.

He's identified as a resident of the Netherlands, but a native of Turkey.  After firing what is called a big gun, he fled. Now, Dutch officials, including the prime minister, has still not ruled out terror in this attack. But there are other indications it could be something else, Neil, indications perhaps it might have been a family dispute, that he was going after one woman on the train, and then people got caught in the crossfire.

He is also known to police, a long criminal record, including attempted manslaughter.

But, Neil, in these times, with what's going on in New Zealand and elsewhere, there were certainly tense moments, tense hours in the town of Utrecht, and still death and injury on the streets there -- back to you.

CAVUTO: All right, thank you very, very much, my friend, Greg Palkot.

Again, if we have any more news on this, we will pass it along.

Also passing along some news that is beginning to look more and more likely, that Apple is going to come up with a foldable phone, very different than some of the other bigger versions you have seen out of the likes of Samsung and Huawei, some of these others.

This could be unusual, let's just say, very unusual -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: Apple is going to have a foldable phone.

And the reason why we know that is, we got our hands on this patent application that shows it. It's impossible for me to read these things, but the word is that they're going to do this and follow a wave that they think is catching on with the likes of Samsung and Huawei and all these others.

Tech analyst Leeza Garber joins me right now. She says this is going to happen.

How will this, Leeza, differ from the other products that are out there?

LEEZA GARBER, ATTORNEY: Great to be here with you, Neil.

CAVUTO: Thank you.

GARBER: And I think it's going to differ because Apple is going to have some hindsight.

Samsung is hopefully releasing their Fold, which is a phone that opens up into a tablet, very soon. Huawei is releasing a foldable phone, I think, in the summer. And then Microsoft has been in discussions to create a foldable tablet as well.

So Apple is going to take its time and get to see what works and what doesn't.

CAVUTO: Now, Apple's, I'm told, will be smaller at least than what we see these other devices being.

GARBER: Definitely.

CAVUTO: But it will be like a perfect size. But what will it offer that a regular phone doesn't?

GARBER: Well, it really gives you more flexibility.

And with any of these devices -- the Huawei phone folds. It actually has the screen on the outside. So when you have it open, it's a big device.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: It's really big.

GARBER: And the Samsung phone may apparently have a screen on the outside, and then it opens up like a book, and there's more screens inside.

But, really, it just gives you the ability to carry a larger device, bigger screens. We love the larger iPhone screens as well. So, it's just another way to get you connected.

CAVUTO: Does it give you the option, at least when you're using it as a phone, that it doesn't open up into something like this size?

GARBER: It will give you the option to open up into that size.

But then you can use it as a regular phone too. What people are worried about is, where is the camera going to go? Is the camera going to be as good? And is it going to be too clunky?

Phones keep getting thinner -- thinner and thinner.

CAVUTO: Right.

GARBER: We like the batteries, the ion batteries, to be more and more capable.

But then you might run into problems like with the Samsung Galaxy, those phones exploding, catching on fire.

CAVUTO: Not a good thing.

GARBER: There a lot of technological issues we have to be careful of.

CAVUTO: All right, but when it folds, for example, the Apple one -- and that's what's getting all the attention here -- are people that drawn to going back to the future? I mean, didn't we have this?

GARBER: Yes.

CAVUTO: You and I were talking about the Motorola flip phone. That was its rage then. And you were mentioning something post that.

GARBER: I was just saying the Razer is making a comeback. And we all remember the Razers as being the really satisfying -- you flip it closed when you want to hang up, and they're covered in rhinestones and Britney Spears stickers back in my day.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Mine was not covered in Britney Spears stickers.

(LAUGHTER)

GARBER: OK. All right. Well...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: But you think that this is real, this is going to happen, right?

GARBER: This is going to happen.

And what's going to happen, I think, is we're going to see the Huawei phone come out, the Samsung phone come out, and potentially the Microsoft Andromeda tablet come out. And as people get more and more adjusted to these new options, Apple's going to have to make way for that new development as well.

CAVUTO: All right, we will watch closely.

Leeza Garber, thank you for stopping by, clarifying this.

GARBER: Thank you.

CAVUTO: She always thinks I'm like a fuddy-duddy with this stuff, and she is right.

(LAUGHTER)

CAVUTO: By the way, did you get much work done today, this week?

Well, with the NCAA March Madness coming, some of your bosses are worried that you're going to do nothing -- after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CAVUTO: All right, it is called March Madness. And it is on.

You know the drill with the NCAA and the -- to become who is going to be the new NCAA basketball champion.

It's an $8.5 billion business right now, $13 billion in lost productivity, though, because everyone at work is filling out bracket sheets and all the rest, not, me mind you, because I'm here to report on it.

We have got FOX News contributor Kat Timpf. We got have Turning Point USA's Rob Smith, and, last but not least, radio host sensation Mike Gunzelman.

Gunz, you don't do this and gamble like that.

MIKE GUNZELMAN, INTERNET RADIO HOST: Oh, of course not. Right. Yes.  Yes.

CAVUTO: I understand.

But I couldn't believe how it disrupts work.

GUNZELMAN: Oh, absolutely.

First of all, March Madness should be a national holiday, because whether you're a high school student or Fortune 500, no work is getting done.  Those business out of -- out-of-work meetings, those people at the Blarney Rock watching these games.

CAVUTO: Really?

GUNZELMAN: Because it's that -- it's that big. It's that important.

There's going to be 16 games on Thursday, 16 games on Friday. Nothing's getting done from noon on. I mean, it's huge. Then you add the bedding aspect to it. One in five adults will be betting on these games.

CAVUTO: That's illegal.

KATHERINE TIMPF, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: But why?

Why do people bet on March Madness? There's no way to really know who's going to win these games. It's pretty random. You might as well go to an ATM, take out some cash and just throw it into the sky. That's about the same thing you're doing people if you bet on these games.

ROB SMITH, TURNING POINT USA: I think that people do it because they have this misguided love for their teams.

Now, I went to Syracuse University for my undergrad, so I'm rooting for Syracuse every year. They break my heart every single year.

CAVUTO: But they also make it every year.

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: They also make it every year, which is great.

But I remember being at the desk when I used to work in ad sales, and I would have the Syracuse game in this window and another game in that window, so that there was no work getting done.

GUNZELMAN: It's actually interesting, though, because some companies...

CAVUTO: Were you doing ad sales for us at the time?

(CROSSTALK)

(LAUGHTER)

GUNZELMAN: But some companies actually block like Yahoo and CBS and ESPN, those Web sites, during the week, because so many people were spending all the time on their servers and on those Web sites.

But now with an app, they can't do that anymore.

TIMPF: It's so annoying.

CAVUTO: But now they're trying to find out what you're doing.

They can -- your boss can trace you. They're getting annoyed about it.

TIMPF: Yes, well, it's really hard for me, as someone who does not care about March Madness whatsoever, because it's all people talk about.

People -- nobody wants to just come over and hang out and watch "Forensic Files" anymore. Everybody wants to go out to the bar and watch the basketball game.

GUNZELMAN: You're the one that will win the bracket, because it's the person that doesn't know anything that goes all the way.

(CROSSTALK)

GUNZELMAN: It is always the case.

CAVUTO: That is always the case.

Guys, I want to switch gears while I have got you here. In Newark, they're proposing something called universal income. You have heard about this, where in this case they would pay someone for $400 a month. Don't know where the money's coming.

TIMPF: Right.

CAVUTO: I think they're kicking around like some sort of services tax to pay for it.

The idea being that they will be productive and it will -- it will pay for itself. What do you think?

TIMPF: Yes, how's it going to pay for itself? If you're requiring someone to do work, then that will pay for itself.

But just giving people money to do nothing, I don't understand how this is a thing. Finland tried it and then they said oops.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Apparently, there's something in the water, with the candidates all pushing it on the left.

SMITH: They're all pushing it. It's this move towards socialism that they're all going for on the left.

Universal basic income does not work. They tried it in Finland, just like Kat said.

TIMPF: Didn't work.

SMITH: They found out that people were...

CAVUTO: Finland is not Newark.

SMITH: Yes, it's not.

But they found out that people were, surprise, surprise, less likely to work when there was a universal basic income. I think it's a really bad idea. I think that taxpayers are going to be footing the bill. And I just don't think it's going to work.

GUNZELMAN: I just don't think that anything works in the city of Newark.  I mean, time and time again, nothing good is in Newark.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I think all the prominent Democratic candidates like some variation of this, right?

TIMPF: Yes, absolutely. And it just shows how far left the Democratic Party has really gone.

You could imagine in the past that people talking about this, they would have said, oh, this is crazy. This is socialism. But socialism isn't scary to a lot of people anymore. And that's scary to me.

CAVUTO: Well, if you don't call it socialism, right, that's the key.

SMITH: Well, you all know that socialism didn't work before, because nobody else in the history of Earth has ever done it right. So that's what they're all trying to tell people.

CAVUTO: Right. You know, you're right. That's what they say. Bernie Sanders has said just almost that.

SMITH: I'm not for socialism.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: All right, by the way, while I have got you here, and some of you even are younger than millennials, but three out of five say, life is more stressful for them than ever. And maybe it's because of the whole bracket thing.

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: We have got March Madness. We have got social media. We have got socialism.

GUNZELMAN: I have left restaurants...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: So do people my age. We deal.

GUNZELMAN: I have left restaurants that did not have Wi-Fi because I needed my phone fix. You know what I mean?

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: You got kicked out of that Starbucks, didn't you?

GUNZELMAN: That is true.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

SMITH: I think there's something to be said for the fact that millennials are so connected and that we're always on social media. That is one of the things that's stressing us out the most, I think.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: You didn't used to have to know if your ex-boyfriend just got engaged. Now you know. Now you know all of them got engaged. Now you know that, oh, maybe you weren't invited on that vacation.

Why wasn't I invited on that vacation? You didn't use to have to worry about that.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: Cheaper than therapy, so...

SMITH: If you're a millennial and you're listening to Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez telling you that the world is going to end in 12 years, then obviously you're going to be a little bit more stressed.

GUNZELMAN: Very stressful. Life these days is very tough.

SMITH: Yes, very tough.

CAVUTO: But is it -- so do you think it's more stressful for you guys than it was, let's say, for my generation?

GUNZELMAN: Oh, absolutely. Social media is really tough, yes.

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: I'm so glad we didn't have social media when I was your guys' age, because I had no friends, and it would have been rubbed in my face.

(CROSSTALK)

TIMPF: Sometimes, really tough things happen, like you post a selfie and it doesn't get that many likes.

CAVUTO: Tell me about it.

GUNZELMAN: It's devastating, life-altering.

TIMPF: That's devastating. It's heartbreaking.

CAVUTO: Go ahead.

SMITH: I think that, a lot of times, like, companies want more and do less for millennials.

I think that we're kind of in that world right now. And I think that that is a lot of the reason why...

(CROSSTALK)

CAVUTO: Well, you should just quit whining maybe.

(LAUGHTER)

SMITH: Maybe so.

CAVUTO: That will do it here.

All right, now they're going to all hit me.
 
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.