Stocks continue to soar amid recent run of strong economic data

close

Video

Stocks continue to soar amid recent run of strong economic data

2019 was a banner year for your money with stocks on pace for best gains since 2013.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," December 26, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

Charles Payne, guest host: Well, forget about the presents under the tree, it's the gift of green Americans have been celebrating and not just over the holidays. Hello, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, filling in for Neal Cavuto. Merry Christmas. And this is a special edition of Your World, and it's been a special year for your stocks, on pace for the best run since 2013. Part of a decades long bull market. So as we approach the new year, will we be looking at new highs in the new decade? Let's ask our market pros, Gary B. Smith, Kathryn Rooney Vera, and Scott Martin. Scott, I want to get your thoughts on this market as we head into the final days of the year.

Scott Martin: Yeah, it looks really good, Charles. Now, that's obviously a time when you should probably be a little bit cautious because that's when things tend to say swim up and then it's out of nowhere. But the reality is this, we're seeing a Fed that's accommodative, we're seeing central banks around the world that are very accommodative, and a U.S. economy that's finally responding. So to me, the market will likely continue a lot of its momentum and any pullbacks should be bought.

Charles Payne: Here's the thing, though, Kathryn, it's one thing for the market to do what it's been doing, but the underlying economy actually seems to be gaining momentum. Certain areas in this economy, for instance, housing, the housing data we've seen recently, there are signs that business investment outside of these big old factories could also start to pick up despite how long and astute this rally has been.

Kathryn Vera: Yeah. Charles. And actually last year on this very program, I came on saying, "You needed to buy the market. It was down 20 percent," precisely on the fear of U.S. recession. I said then recession was not in actuality, it wouldn't happen. It didn't happen. It's not going to happen. My concerns, though, and I'll take them more -- not bearish, but I'll take a more cautious route. We're not a market that has extreme levels of greed and complacency. So what I'm telling my clients, Charles, is protect your positions. Either sell some that are up big or buy options. You can buy put options which protect your downside. Because I don't think, Charles, that the market is pricing in any type of political surprise in what will inevitably be a volatile year in 2020.

Charles Payne: Inevitably, but also, Gary B., you know, you're a market historian. You know, markets typically do well during election years. And then, again, you know, you look at some of the data that we have -- the headwinds of 2019 could actually be tailwinds of 2020.

Gary Smith: Well, they could. I tell you what, you know, Charles, you and I talked, in fact, a couple weeks ago about this parabolic move the market's making, and I think Kathryn and Scott both alluded to it. It just seems a little thin right now. I mean, we're going up. We had all these things that we had to worry about, Brexit, the impeachment, the trade tariff with China, and yet it keeps going up. And I'm scratching -- look, I love it. Don't get me wrong. But I scratch my head thinking, "Am I missing something? Is there nothing to worry [LAUGHS] about out there?”

Kathryn Vera: I'll tell you what to worry about, Gary. [LAUGHS]

Gary Smith: I can't find anything. Don't get me wrong, but I'm worried that there's got to be a black swan out there that I'm missing. It just can't keep going straight up in spite of everything. That's my --

Charles Payne: Kathryn --

Gary Smith: That's my fear.

Charles Payne: Kathryn says she going to tell you what you should be worried about.

Kathryn Vera: Well, Charles, a third of all debt now is negative yielding. I mean, no one is talking about this right now because the markets are all at record high euphoria stage. But we have negative interest rate policy on a global scale -- except the Fed, thank God. Hopefully we never get there -- but that has been fostering too much risk appetite, an assumption of risk. If we get even the specter of inflation in 2020, then I think the markets are going to retrace in a meaningful way. One more point that I'll say that is not priced in right now. If we get a Sanders or a Warren nominee, guys, let's face it, this is -- these are the facts. The markets completely ignoring it, 50 percent of the S&P 500 is attached to banks --

Charles Payne: You're right. You're right.

Kathryn Vera: -- tech, and healthcare. These are people that want to do those in.

Charles Payne: You make a good point. When the Elizabeth Warren was ahead in the polls, health care stocks in particular took it on the nose there for a moment. But, Scott, you know, we hear this a lot, though, that there's too much euphoria out there. Right now, individual investor optimism is too high. But it was a professional investor and their pessimism all year long that I thought was remarkable, despite the fact that the actual data we were seeing was great data and all the negative stuff was all on the speculative side.

Scott Martin: Yeah, it wasn't bad. And I'll tell you, the market tried to forecast at times certain slowdowns, which it may have, but it obviously recovered. And I'll take the opposite to Kathryn's point, though, because a little inflation could go a long way for stocks here, Charles. And we've seen inflation absolutely nowhere in the last several years. The Fed has made comments to the fact that they'd like to see some inflation, so I think that actually could be good for stocks. And don't forget, too, the fact, guys, that earnings could expand really nicely next year off of a pretty easy comp year this year. So if we get some earnings expansion, valuations in the market could expand as well. That could take the S&P even higher.

Charles Payne: You know, Gary B., consumer sentiment, individuals saying they look at inflation over the next five years like a 2 percent, little over 2 percent, the lowest on record. We know the Fed kind of pivots toward that. I mean, if inflation is a concern for the experts for Main Street, people are expecting higher wages next year and low inflation. Is that too much of a Goldilocks situation?

Gary Smith: No, I don't think so. You know, I think most of the people looking at inflation are thinking still back to the Arthur Burns-Paul Volcker area of inflation. There's just so much competition out there. You know, back then when they were fighting inflation, when Paul Volcker was -- had 10 percent inflation, there was no Internet. You couldn't go around and shop easily for prices. Who has pricing power anymore? There, you know -- we -- I talked to -- last week that there's basically one, duopoly out there, Boeing and Airbus. That's it. Those are the only people that have pricing power. As far as wages to other point, they've grown the fastest, even faster than they have under Obama, which people don't point out.

And finally, the final point I want to make is, last night -- look, there's like five trillion dollars on the sidelines of people that were afraid to get into this market. That's -- so that's the flip side of my fear argument. That's the rocket fuel.

Charles Payne: And last week, 16 billion of it came in. Maybe the rest will pour in as well. Folks, we got to leave it there. Merry Christmas. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it.

Gary Smith: Thank you.

Kathryn Vera: Merry Christmas.

Charles Payne: So with stocks way are President Trump's chances in 2020 way up? That's coming up.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Charles Payne: Maybe it is the economy that matters most to voters. President Trump's poll numbers are rising right along with the stock market and the economy, so is this what will win the day next November? Let's get the read from Independent Women's Forum in Inez Stepman, Democratic strategist Nathan Rubin, and the National Review's Mairead McArdle. Mairead, let me start with you. I guess someone once coined the term, “Is the economy stupid?” Certainly, if that's the case, it looks like President Trump to be cruising to reelection.

Mairead McArdle: I think it is the economy, partly, and another big topic is health care. But I think one interesting thing is that the Democrats, as far as impeachment is concerned -- the backdrop to impeachment is this booming economy. We had this great jobs report earlier this month, and I think you'll see that's an important thing going forward.

Charles Payne: There's no doubt about that Nathan, I mean, listen, I remember back when the Democrats were pushing through Obamacare under President Obama --

Nathan Rubin: Yep.

Charles Payne: -- quite a few of them fell on their political swords.

Nathan Rubin: Yep.

Charles Payne: And it feels like there's maybe some already have done that in the House, and you wonder how many people in the Senate have the appetite for that. Certainly, it doesn't look like the Doug Jones does.

Nathan Rubin: Well, I think what's interesting -- and a little bit to the points earlier made, the economy is in good shape. The stock market is up. Unemployment is down. I would say that the president is probably a modest favorite to win reelection, despite all of those macroeconomic factors going in his favor. We still see polls from Fox News even showing 50 percent, 54 percent in favor of impeachment, 15 percent in favor of removal. So I think that we're seeing, you know, really different views on, “Yeah, the economy is great, but I'm not so sure I want to send this president back into office.”

Charles Payne: You know, Inez, I don't -- I prefer economic models. There are three real good economic models that all show President Trump winning big time. One said that he would steamroll his Democratic opponents, and they looked at the economy in every state, and they took -- they factored in the Electoral College. It's just hard for me to imagine that those blue collar workers that voted twice for President Obama then gave their vote to President Trump, leaving him at this point if this holds up -- I can't imagine them leaving.

Inez Stepman: Well -- and especially since those jobs numbers and economic numbers aren't actually just focused, for example, on Wall Street, on the stock market. We're seeing really, really great jobs numbers for lower income Americans. Right? So I definitely think the economy is the strongest feather in his cap, but I don't actually think it's the only issue in this election, and I actually disagree with the analysis. We're at each other's throats, even though this is a fantastic economy. Right? We're so culturally divided as Americans that even this great booming economy isn't papering over those divides. So I still see this as a big, tough election, a fight, but I do agree. I think President Trump, looking right now -- and anything could happen in the next year but looking right now it seems like he's sitting pretty.

Nathan Rubin: Well then, Charles, if I could jump in there as well, just because the stock market is up and unemployment is down, we still have tens of millions of Americans that can't afford a 400 dollar emergency. So even though these macroeconomic indicators are great and the microlevel --

Charles Payne: And the micro is going well, too but to your point, out of 300 million people. Yeah, they’re going to be millions -- in fact, you know, when Obama left office, it was twenty six million without health insurance. And yet, you've got Democrats who are saying that should be the thing we run on. So the numbers are always going to be in the millions, but enough to win the election -- and again, I think you bring up a great point about the tribalism, and we're at each other's throats. I don't think that next year is going to be that election where some sort of uniter comes out of the Democratic Party, and that's what this will be all about.

Inez Stepman: Well, as I was saying before, health care is another.

Charles Payne: It was big in the midterms; do you think it will be just as big next year?

Inez Stepman: I think it's a close second to the economy. But one thing I'm seeing from Democrats is that they have slightly different plans, and some of them, such as Warren, tend to waffle on some of their specifics. So it'll be interesting to see where voters end up falling as far as whether they know.

Charles Payne: That's a great point. I mean, Nathan, that is what's really at the heart of the fight on the Democratic side right now. Right? Is it -- do we give away every single thing or just 90 percent of it?

Nathan Rubin: Well, to your point.

Charles Payne: You know, listen here, you see what's happening with Warren's numbers, when she had to actually put out the numbers.

Nathan Rubin: I fear that we are going through a primary process where, to your point, it will be hard to bring that coalition back together on the other side. We have people that are all for Bernie Sanders, Medicare for all. You have people who are for Joe Biden improving the Affordable Care Act. Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete are in this in-between of, “Let's start with a public option and glide into Medicare for all.” And the people who support Bernie Sanders, I don't necessarily see them coalescing behind someone like Joe Biden if he does become the nominee.

Charles Payne: Right. Last time, President Trump peeled off a lot of those Bernie Bro's, if you will. You know, you brought -- you bring up tribalism, and that sort of gets to the soft underbelly of America right now. Classism, the issues of race, and things like that, you know, will that play a role in deciding this election in a sense that many people feel like Russia took advantage of that last time out?

Mairead McArdle: Well, the KGB has a long history, and now, of course, not the KGB anymore, the FSB, but a long history of pushing on exactly the points, the fault lines in American society that are real fault lines. Right. And I don't think that their interference in terms of Facebook ads and such did much at all of anything. But the fact is that we do have these really deep cultural divides, and I think it goes to the fact the president consistently has his 40, 40 to 45 percent support, basically no matter what he does, because people feel pushed against the wall. They feel like they're playing for all the political marbles because of where the left is. Because of where the Democratic Party has gone, people are willing to overlook things that in the past -- even 10, 20 years ago -- they wouldn't overlook in a candidate, but that's going to be our politics. I don't see a way out, at least in the immediate future. I hope that in the long-term future, Americans will find a way to come together, but I don't see a way of that going on now.

Charles Payne: The fact of the matter is President Trump has become the actual proxy for those voters, those disenfranchise voters who voted for him the first time around, and they really solidified. You all -- thank you very much. Appreciate you coming in. Hey, forget about getting gifts. Now, more people are asking loved ones to help them get out of debt instead. And speaking of gifts, the House putting some call on the White House stocking, but is the Senate set to give the president a present when it comes to impeachment?

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Nancy Pelosi: On this vote, the Yeas are 230, the Nays are 197. Present is one. Article one is adopted. [gavel] On this vote, the Yeas are two 229, the Nays are 198. Present is one. Article two [gavel] is adopted.

[end video clip]

Charles Payne: The House voted to impeach President Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still holding back on the articles, which means a Senate trial is still in limbo. So what happens now? Former federal prosecutor Katie Cherkasky joins me now.

Katie, you know, on one hand, we were told throughout this process it was a political process. But now that it's supposed to shift to the Senate, it's the Democrats feel like they're treating it more like a criminal trial. And what are the dynamics of this? Why are they different?

Katie Cherkasky: Sure. With the impeachment trial, the procedure is everything. The outcome is destined. So for the sake of deciding how to run this, and for the future of all presidents, these senators really need to agree upon the procedure. And that's not an easy task because there's nothing that's prescribed in the Constitution.

Charles Payne: One would assume, however, that the majority would be the one setting the rules, just like Nancy Pelosi set the rules for the -- for everything that went on in the House.

Katie Cherkasky: That's true to a great extent, and they do have a lot of power to do that. The question is, how do you make the decisions that will make it a fair process to both sides and also make it a legitimate process? And when you have a trial, really, I think just on its face, the bare minimum that should be required, at least to some extent, is witnesses and the presentation of evidence to make a valid decision.

Charles Payne: Yeah. That process is muddled, though, on the House side. You know, you say whether it's fair, you know, it's -- very few Republicans think that the entire thing on the House side was fair. And then, of course, you had on Monday with Chuck Schumer saying, "Hey, we want four key witnesses making witness demands." By the same token, I'm not sure if they would like to see Hunter Biden come up and testify. Should the whistleblower then be required to come up? Should even Representative Schiff be required to come up? I mean, it's got to be balanced if indeed that's the route they want to go down.

Katie Cherkasky: Yeah, absolutely. I think that the Democrats better pick their poison with it because there are going to be concessions on both sides. But for the sake of the procedure, I think there does need to be some semblance of what we know a trial to be, even though the Constitution doesn't require any sort of witnesses to be presented or any sort of evidence really at all. I think it would be a mistake to not require at least some of that procedure.

Charles Payne: How much should they borrow against history? Mitch McConnell saying, "Hey, we've gone through this before. We know what the rules were in the past." He's willing to walk along those same -- to use those parameters and guidelines this time around. And still, I think he's got a fair amount of pushback from Republicans -- from Democrats, rather.

Katie Cherkasky: I think that it's -- it would be a lot easier if there were specific rules prescribed. When you have so many people making decisions, there's going to be debate about what should or shouldn't happen. And even at the trial itself, there's still people making decisions about what evidence comes in and what doesn't.

Charles Payne: Are there specific rules --

Katie Cherkasky: But there's got to be --

Charles Payne: -- Katie, that you're alluding to? You brought this point up several times. What do you think should -- give us the parameters that you think would be ideal and fair.

Katie Cherkasky: At the bare minimum, I think that there needs to be an allowance for it to present some amount of witnesses on each side, to present some amount of argument on each side, maybe even the limit by a certain number of hours, and to leave that to a vote. I think that would be a semblance of a trial. This is a trial, and there should be some allowance for the presentation of evidence, and I think that would be fair to both sides.

Charles Payne: All right, Katie, thank you very much. Always appreciate it.

Katie Cherkasky: Thank you.

Charles Payne: Hey, can't wait to return that sweater you just got? Why retailers can't wait either. We'll explain.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Mike Emanuel: Merry Christmas from Fox News in Washington. I'm Mike Emanuel. Your World continues in a moment. But first, this Special Report Newsbreak. Breaking tonight from the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rushed to a bomb shelter while he was holding a campaign event. A rocket was reportedly fired near his location and intercepted by the Iron Dome missile defense system.

The remains of a 33-year old American soldier killed in combat in Afghanistan returned to the United States today. Sergeant First Class Michael Goble of New Jersey was killed by a roadside bomb in northern Kunduz province. The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Christmas celebrations taking place around the world tonight. From the birthplace of Jesus to your homes, to Buckingham Palace, the Vatican, and the president's Mar-a-Lago estate, where the first family is spending the holiday. Listen to these Christmas messages from some of the world's leaders.

[BEGIN VIDEO CLIP]

Melania Trump: The president and I want to use each and every American a very merry Christmas.

Queen Elizabeth II: And as we all look forward to the start of a new decade, it's worth remembering that it is often the small steps, not the giant leaps, that bring about the most lasting change. And so, I wish you all a very Happy Christmas.

Pope Francis: There is darkness in human hearts, yet the light of Christ is greatest still. There is darkness in personal family and social relationships, but the light of Christ is the greatest.

[END VIDEO CLIP]

Mike Emanuel: Santa Claus has, of course, become a big part of modern Christmas and of all the ways to deliver gifts, the Aurora, Colorado, Police Department gave old St. Nick a SWAT escort. No safety worries, though. It's become an annual tradition for officers to help Santa deliver toys in the Aurora area. I'll be back with you at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time for a live special report. Now back to Your World. Merry Christmas.

Charles Payne: Think holiday shopping is over today? Think again. Turns out several -- around seven in 10 consumers will likely shop the week after Christmas to take advantage of post-holiday deals. Retail Me Not shopping trends expert Sara Skirboll is here with us now, and Sara when does it stop? I mean, [LAUGHS] before it is Black Friday, Cyber Monday, it's Super Saturday, and now it's post-Christmas shopping?

Sara Skirboll: It's not stopping anytime soon, which is great for retailers because they have an extra six days before the end of the month to, you know, make up some revenue that they might have missed. Although the forecast says that things are probably going to be about flat this year, but the good news is that people are going in stores. You said it, 68 percent of Americans are planning to head into the stores on December 26 and afterwards. So they'll be redeeming gift cards, they'll be taking advantage of sales, they'll be doing all sorts of things, both online and in-store.

Charles Payne: You know, so I was reading an article earlier in the week about these massive returns and how that was bad news for the retailers, but I guess if you're walking into the store, you can sort of -- they can sort of nudge you toward buying something else.

Sara Skirboll: You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly right. So, yes. Have you ever walked into a store, and you return something, and you see something else on sale? Especially, you know, the day after Christmas, things are marked down 20, 30, 40, 50 percent off, so, "Okay. I'm going to return this shirt, but I might need a pair of pants." And the day after Christmas is actually one of the biggest days where people are shopping for themselves, so I wouldn't be surprised that more people are making purchases than returns tomorrow and the days after.

Charles Payne: You mentioned gift cards. There was a few years ago -- Wall Street went nuts. The gift card mania, you know, and it was going to do all this stuff for retailers. I hadn't heard much about the impact of gift cards in the last couple of years. Are they still significant right now?

Sara Skirboll: Well, that's a great question. And the fact of the matter is that people are still buying gift cards. But what they're doing, they're not just buying gift cards, they are buying discount gift cards. So you can buy a gift card that is valued at 100 dollars, but you can buy it at 15 percent off or 10 percent off, so it costs you 90 dollars. And what people are doing with these discount gift cards are spending them on themselves. So it's just another way to --

Charles Payne: [LAUGHS]

Sara Skirboll: -- save money or they're gifting them. But, you know, people are savvy. Shoppers are very savvy these days. They're always looking for deals and sales and coupons and cash back. And another way to save is taking advantage of a discount gift card.

Charles Payne: That's me. I buy a gift card and use it for myself. Hey, I've got to let you run, but real quick, did we live up so far to the hype this holiday shopping season?

Sara Skirboll: Did we live up to the hype? I think it's going to be, you know, around flat, nowhere higher than 4 percent. You know, it's different because people started shopping a lot earlier than they have in the past. So that means that the shopping season was really spread out and retailers have to look at the season really starting back in July. In fact, people started that early when they're starting their holiday shopping.

Charles Payne: Pretty soon we'll never stop, and it'll just be a continuous circle. Sara, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Sara Skirboll: Thanks for having me.

Charles Payne: Hey, here's something you probably didn't find under the tree this morning, a survey from country financial lists debt relief at the top of 49 percent of American's wish lists, to which my next guest says, "Bah humbug." A personal finance expert, Larry Winget, is here. You always say, "Bah humbug" when it comes to this debt stuff --

Larry Winget: [LAUGHS]

Charles Payne: -- but people want debt relief. They're saying, "Get me out of it."

Larry Winget: You know, what a great idea. You go out and charge it up and then give it to me to pay off.

Charles Payne: [LAUGHS]

Larry Winget: Where's the lesson in that, Charles? Heck of a deal if you can find somebody to do it, but I think it's a horrible idea.

Charles Payne: There are a couple of people running for president on that philosophy.

[LAUGHTER]

Who knows, it might actually be part of the national theme from here on out. But, you know, it's tough, though, right? The debt situation, we never feel like -- and it feels like we never truly get it under control. You know, we know that we went from credit cards and now student loans and people are worried about subprime auto loans. But also, Americans want to get out there. They want to live, and you could drive a new car for 180 bucks a month. It's hard to resist that.

Larry Winget: Yeah, but when you only got 80 bucks a month, 180 doesn't make any sense, does it? The problem is we all live in the moment, and we want everything we see everybody else having. We watch Living with the Kardashians, and we think that's our right to live just like they do, not understanding they got a whole lot more money than all of us do. The problem is we've got to have discipline, commitment, and I believe what people need to remember about debt moving forward is that debt is a moral commitment, in my opinion. It's about integrity. You charged it. They advance you the money. You owe it to them. It's their money.

Charles Payne: Yeah.

Larry Winget: And so, you need to have a real obligation to the people that you do owe money, and you need to remember wants, needs, and can't live withouts.

Charles Payne: You know, that's a great point, Larry. But by the same token, I remember, you know, when the Great Recession begun the idea was that it wasn't your fault, that these folks who gave you the 180 dollar car and knew you were only making 80 bucks.

Larry Winget: Yeah.

Charles Payne: So the onus isn't on you, it's on these folks who took advantage of you, it's on a corrupt system, and people actually felt, "Okay, we're not paying these bills without paying these debts." Living in a house for two or three years without paying a mortgage before finally being kicked out. They thought that was morally okay.

Larry Winget: Yeah, and that's why I think my last book was all about core values, and that's why I think you have to bring up the moral side of this about honesty, integrity, and respect for other people's money because debt is other people's money that you've pretty much already enjoyed. So we need the moral obligation around taking care of the people who advanced us that money and understand they did us a favor.

Charles Payne: You know, with just a minute to go, some of the economic data I look at show that our savings rate is still relatively high compared to life before the onset of the Great Recession. It feels like we learned something of a lesson, but the debt side keeps going up. Are we just doomed to repeat the mistakes that we've made in the past, even when we try not to?

Larry Winget: You know, it's sad to have to admit that, but probably we are. If you don't learn the lesson the hard way -- and a lot of people didn't learn it the hard way. So I'm betting they probably did learn the lesson -- but if you didn't feel the pain -- pain is a great teacher. Consequences control behavior, and if you've never felt the consequences, chances are you're not going to change that behavior.

Charles Payne: Well, you know, I don't care what they say, you're not the Grinch. You're actually Santa Claus making us do the right thing in the right way. Larry, thank you very much.

Larry Winget: You bet.

Charles Payne: Hey, from spending money on presents to spending money on 2020, how the fundraising game is shaking out as we head into the new year.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Charles Payne: Impeached? They're raising money off it. The Trump campaign reportedly bringing in 10 million dollars in the two days following President Trump's impeachment vote. Is this a money sign of things to come? Let's get the read from New York Post's Sohrab Ahmari. The numbers are phenomenal. He's been raising money; his poll numbers have gone through the roof. In the meantime, independents are saying, "Hey, you know, we don't have an appetite for it." And the Democrats look like they're sort of in this sort of unbalanced position right now.

Sohrab Ahmari: Yeah, Charles, it seems like the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot in one more way. Which is -- not only have they -- they've set up a process they know is not going to lead to the president's removal, first of all. It's alienating independents, as you said. And the Trump campaign has internal polling showing that in some of these battleground states and districts that the Democrats won in 2018, but the president won in 2016, there is a 11 percentage point -- people in favor of getting rid of the Democratic congressman or woman that voted in.

Charles Payne: Wow.

Sohrab Ahmari: Now, you have this new funding gap being created because this president is very good at making a case that he's being persecuted. And you know what? He is kind of being persecuted for three and a half years -- or for three years. He's been just the subject of one investigation after another. And that really plays to his base.

Charles Payne: It really felt like when the Mueller report was a dry hole, the Democrats got desperate and grabbed the first thing that appeared, and that was this whole Ukraine phone call. And Nancy Pelosi, though, to your point, she knew -- I mean, it's pretty obvious she knew the political peril here.

Sohrab Ahmari: Yeah.

Charles Payne: She pushed it back, and she pushed back until -- I felt like it was a Sunday tweet from AOC that took her over the edge because the next day she changed course, and here we are today.

Sohrab Ahmari: Yes. I think she's politically wise. This is a shrewd woman. So she knew this was coming. And now you sense there's the feeling that they don't know what to do with this. I mean, it's very clear. And the president's defenders will say that the decision not to transmit the actual articles of impeachment and allow the process to play out in the Senate, what else could it be but the fact that they felt like they hadn't built up enough of a case that would convince a consensus, a national consensus of people, to remove the president from office?

Charles Payne: I'm really shocked they're -- to your point, they're compounding mistake after mistake after mistake. Let me ask you about President Obama now. There's a report that he's been talking up 2020 candidate Elizabeth Warren. This is behind closed doors to wealthy donors. And I mean, when you think about it, when she gave that speech that really propelled her to the national stage, the "You didn't build that" speech. He gave many speeches very similar to that as well. It feels like they are -- they do share the same ideological sort of, you know, beliefs.

Sohrab Ahmari: I think so, too. I think that they are both very much to the left of center, but not socialist, full-on socialist, Bernie-Left. I think there's been signals from President Obama that he's very worried about Bernie Sanders and what he would represent for the Democratic Party. And so he wants the party to remain very much a progressive party. But to be a progressive party that's in the hands of the party's elites, the quote unquote, "responsible people.”

Charles Payne: Right. Right.

Sohrab Ahmari: And so I think that is really his fear of Bernie there.

Charles Payne: Speaking of progressive, though, coming into this whole process, this was the year that the Democrats were going to show the world how progressive America was. And we have, quote unquote, "people of color" and women and all of that and we look at the debate stage and -- so more recently, Trump's been talking up women. They controlled the world, that they ruled the world. And you got to believe with his influence, if the woman is at the top of the ticket, she's going to definitely be the vice president, you know, whoever they choose for vice president.

Sohrab Ahmari: Yeah, I mean, you live by identity politics, you die by identity politics. I think we live in an age where a lot of Americans feel like things are broken, and they want solutions. And this kind of politics of always representation, checking boxes and about identity instead of delivering things like President Trump has done, wage growth for the first time -- serious wage growth for the first time in a long time, working class jobs coming back, manufacturing jobs. That's what people are looking at.

Charles Payne: Well, maybe they have to learn the hard way. It's great having you here.

Sohrab Ahmari: Thanks, Charles.

Charles Payne: Thanks very much. Hey, worried a family argument could turn today from festive to feisty? Amazon's Alexa has a new feature to help keep the stress away.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Charles Payne: Tis the season for spending quality time with family, but a new survey revealing the average person can't last four hours with their relatives over the holidays. Sounds about right. Let's get straight to it. Entrepreneur Eva Sadej and Internet Radio Host Mike Gunzelman. All right, Mike.

Mike Gunzelman: [LAUGHS]

Charles Payne: Four hours are pretty good. You know, I don't agree with most of those numbers, but that sounds about right.

Mike Gunzelman: Yeah. I mean -- kids, here, listen, it's every human being's God given right to get into an argument over the holidays. I mean, it's not really the holidays unless you get into a fight. But I figure like four hours is probably about, you know, right. You have a couple of -- you're a couple of drinks in and then, you know, you let the guard down, and everybody gets loose on it. But it's funny because, you know, just a couple of weeks ago, we already got into the fights over Thanksgiving and you're like, "Oh, I'm out. I in the clear." But no, once again, your mom's going to be like, "Oh, you're still single?" And you're like, "Yeah, mom, it's been three weeks, and I'm still single." So obviously, the fights are going to happen. People are going to be poking each other and whatnot. But that's the beauty of the holidays.

Charles Payne: Right. What do you think?

Eva Sadej: I mean, families don't have boundaries. Like anything you'd have at a cocktail party, any rule, you're going to break. So they'll talk about money, religion, politics, your weight, your marital status, I mean, throw in everything. Families are going to talk about it. And so it's a prime time to get into arguments about it if we're actually going to broach that subject.

Charles Payne: But there's also, like, I don't know -- I feel like we know the jerk in the family. We know the person who is going to get drunk first --

[LAUGHTER]

-- and then some -- you know, we kind of know the people --

Mike Gunzelman: A lot of personalities and characters.

Charles Payne: We know going into this where they're coming from. And it almost feels like, "Was there a way to stop it this time?" But there never is.

Mike Gunzelman: No, of course not. And then you also people like me who actually likes stirring the pot. You know what I mean? I like, you know --

Charles Payne: He's the guy.

Mike Gunzelman: I'm the guy.

[LAUGHTER]

I'm the bad guy.

Eva Sadej: I'm happy he's not my relative.

[LAUGHTER]

Mike Gunzelman: You know, I'm going to be like, "Oh, what do you think about climate change?" And oh, God. There we go on that. You know, what I mean? So, listen, it is fun, though. It's the holidays. That's what it's all about. And I think about four hours, you know, and then you started drinking more --

Charles Payne: And you like to lob those grenades. All right. Now, for those who are sticking it out with their families, Amazon's Alexa has something that just might help. It's a new feature that allows you to tell the virtual assistant to change the subject. And it will then ask a random question. Eva, what do you think?

Eva Sadej: I think that's ridiculous.

Charles Payne: Huh? Why?

Eva Sadej: It's ridiculous. Like I find it a cool feature. I always, you know, toot Alexa's horn and everything, but we have to know how to change our own topics, like it's a level of technology helping us socialize. Like technology makes us isolated, and now it's an emotional crutch to our isolation, and so it's just too much.

Charles Payne: But it does that sound like Mike needs all the help he can get.

Mike Gunzelman: I do.

[LAUGHTER]

Eva Sadej: Mike needs help, yes. Yes.

Mike Gunzelman: Mike needs all the help, let me tell you. Well, listen, I mean, it shows that -- how much we're lacking in our social skills, the fact that we need Alexa to change the topic. But I wish that they had something that you could mute somebody at the table. Be like, yeah, let's not have them talk anymore. That's the feature I want. You know what I mean? [LAUGHS]

Charles Payne: I think there's going to be big arguments over what Alexa chooses, like, you know, "Ah, man, my Alexa wouldn't have picked that at my house" or whatever. You know.

Eva Sadej: It's not even just Alexa. Like Apple -- the Apple Watch has a setting where if someone's bothering you and your blood pressure is going up, then it shows like a blue symbol. And so, my sister has it, and then she looks at, and she points to me, like, "You're bothering me.”

Charles Payne: No. Really?

Eva Sadej: So this is a whole trend.

Charles Payne: Well, we had that when I was growing up. It was called the Mood Ring.

[LAUGHTER]

Eva Sadej: Yes.

Mike Gunzelman: That's right.

Charles Payne: They weren't as accurate as an Apple Watch.

Mike Gunzelman: Blood pressure, like what is that?

Eva Sadej: [LAUGHS]

Mike Gunzelman: Come on, now.

Charles Payne: Like if I was real happy, the mood ring would be black like, you know, then you'd be real cold and it'd be like blue, and you'd be like, "What? Hold on." But that was early technology, real early technology.

Mike Gunzelman: Oh, I see.

Charles Payne: But I guess it plays a role, right?

Mike Gunzelman: Yeah.

Charles Payne: To keep us on the straight and narrow.

Mike Gunzelman: What they're trying to do is Alexa's going to throw in other topics to debate. It's one of the questions it's already a given that we know it's going to be part of it is Die Hard a Christmas movie? So then, you know, they're going to throw that topic out and then you can just argue about that as well. So is it really solving anything when they're just throwing out things that people are going to get fights in?

Eva Sadej: [LAUGHS]

Charles Payne: Actually this holiday -- as the Christmas movie, is Love, Actually a Christmas movie now?

Eva Sadej: I'd say it qualifies, yeah.

Charles Payne: You think so. Oh, okay.

Mike Gunzelman: And Die Hard is one, by the way.

Charles Payne: Die Hard is?

Mike Gunzelman: Die Hard is one.

[LAUGHS]

Charles Payne: I didn't even ask because I thought everyone knew that.

Mike Gunzelman: C, my man.

Charles Payne: My man. Another one. Putting Fido First. There's a new survey finding 62 percent of millennials say that they would take their pet to the vet before going to the doctors themselves, and Eva I can just say, those folks have never had gout. But what do you think overall, though?

Mike Gunzelman: [LAUGHS]

Eva Sadej: I mean -- it, so -- health care right now is a convenience and cost thing that's going on in the industry.

Charles Payne: But I think the overall jist here is that we love our dogs more than we love ourselves.

Eva Sadej: Yeah, and it actually --

Charles Payne: Or our cats.

Eva Sadej: -- it defies the trend, interestingly. So pet care is much more expensive than human. I mean, if you look at dental appointments 95 bucks, 300 bucks for your pet.

Charles Payne: Good answer though. I mean, the emergency room at midnight. You know--

Mike Gunzelman: You've been to the drink tank; you know what I mean. [LAUGHS] It's terrible.

Charles Payne: You know, like, listen. "We could check them out, but it's going to cost a G, and we need it right now."

Mike Gunzelman: The bottom line is a lot of humans do care more about animals than humans. You think of Harambe. People were upset that they went up to Harambe.

Eva Sadej: Oh, poor Harambe.

Mike Gunzelman: There was a baby. There was a human being. This is where we're at as a society. But I must say this, I think that for dogs, yes, I can take care of a dog. But cats, the movie Cats has ruined people's opinions of cats for a full generation. That thing is a --

Charles Payne: I don't know.

Mike Gunzelman: -- freak show. I don't need any part of that in my life. I hate cats now.

Charles Payne: I think it's ruined people's opinions of humans trying to act like cats. I don't --

Eva Sadej: That's true. Well, you know what I actually think this whole pet spending thing is about? I think it's different. I actually think it's about mental health because your pet is there to have you less lonely as we disconnect from people, and so when you spend on their health, you feel happier like you're giving. So I actually think the trend is with that.

Mike Gunzelman: I think it just that --

Charles Payne: You go out there --

[cross talk]

Charles Payne: -- lecture me at the end of --

Mike Gunzelman: I know right. You've got all these hits. I think it's just pets aren't as annoying as human beings. [LAUGHS]

Charles Payne: If we can clone you, take you to the family outing, then we never have any problems. That was an excellent answer.

Eva Sadej: I think so.

Mike Gunzelman: There you go.

Eva Sadej: Amazing.

Charles Payne: Thank you very much. We all love our pets for many deep reasons we don’t even know.

Mike Gunzelman: Except cats.

Charles Payne: Except cats or humans who act like cats.

Mike Gunzelman: [LAUGHS]

Charles Payne: Thank you both very much. Coming up next is a Christmas message during these very trying times.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

Charles Payne: As we reflect on this Christmas Day, a lot of tension, a lot of trying times, but we do have a lot to be thankful for, and a lot in common to move toward a place of civility in the New Year. So let's talk to one of our favorite guests here in your world, Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute. Father, thanks for joining us.

Father Robert Sirico: Good to be with you, Charles. Thanks for having me.

Charles Payne: We have these segments every Christmas, and we're always hopeful, but we always -- it always feels like to a degree that certain parts of our society that -- call it tribalism or whatever you want to call it -- that seem to be getting actually worse, even though it was a good year in general for America.

Father Robert Sirico: You know, if you look at the manger scene, this is the big image of what Christmas is. We think of it is this idealistic, pleasant, peaceful place, but in reality, it was a stable. Think for a moment what a stable's like. It stunk. There were animals that were defecating in the stable. It was cold. It was not even planned. They weren't supposed to be there. They were looking for a hotel room. And that is precisely the mess into which the son of God came. So if we reduce the idealism of Christmas and emphasize its incarnation, which is what the feast is about, I think we can have a more realistic and holistic understanding of the meaning of Christmas.

Charles Payne: So then is that holistic, realistic meaning more about hope in the future rather than a concentration on the present tense? And what we dealt with throughout the year?

Father Robert Sirico: No, I think it's -- the hope comes from the reality, the sanctification of the present. This is a young woman who is caught in a calling from God that literally could have put her life at stake. They're being chased by hostile forces, and it's damp and cold and, you know, so precarious, and yet she becomes the most profound woman in human history. She's -- the scripture says that she -- her name is blessed in all generations.

There's the hope in exactly the circumstance that she confronts with her son. He becomes the king of kings, the Lord of Lords. In a derivative way, we can understand that the contingencies of our life, the limitations of our life, the precariousness of our life can become the occasion of greatness if we turn to the one who is the prince of peace. Even as people are now in their homes with families and, you know, all kinds of discussions and tensions and baggage, I wonder if we could just sit back and look and say, "You know, there is the possibility, the potential, for peace, there's potential for holiness in the midst of this very contentious circumstance.

Charles Payne: It would seem that that would be the case, just even considering history in general and all of the things that we've overcome as human beings, in general. And but, we lose sight of it. I mean, it fades away fairly quickly. And for some people, it could be a parking ticket or, you know, a bad day at the office. And so many of the great things that have propelled us to this point we forget about.

Robert Sirico: It's very easy to forget about it because we can get so caught up with the details that we lose the big picture of what the meaning of life is. I've often thought that the greatest consolation I have in times of distress is thinking of history, thinking of the movement of history, that things are never quite as bad as I think they are, that they can be improved. Even tomorrow, they can be improved, that things can take a turn.

Charles Payne: We've got 30 seconds. But in society these days, that sort of thoughtfulness is -- some frown upon it as being corny and misplaced.

Robert Sirico: That's true. I think we need a little more corniness. I think we've become far too cynical. We doubt our own selves. And I think if Christmas points us to anything, it's that star that leads us to the one who gives us the meaning of our own existence.

Charles Payne: Father, thank you so much. We always appreciate it. And we thank you very much. Also, folks at home, we thank you very much. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and have a great new year.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 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 Fox News Network, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.