>>>
so, the reason
chuck schumer
and other top
democrats
in washington are, you know, apprehensi apprehensive, to say the least, about what
bloomberg
is doing is their
senate
majority is really at risk in
2014
and really dependent in
2014
on a lot of, you know, less
blue states
, more
red states
. someone like pryor in arkansas. schumer basically said public this week he wishes
mike bloomberg
would think about this in term if you have a democratic
senate
you're more likely to get gun legislation than if you have a republican
senate
. i wonder what someone like
mike bloomberg
thinks when he hears a message like that, josh.
>>
they're both saying things that are true. two guys talk regularly and playing their assigned roles.
chuck schumer
, good for the country, necessary for the country, including to achieve the political goals he set out to achieve, like
gun control
,
background checks
in particular. but the thing about
mike bloomberg
is if anyone can play a
lawn game
, that's him. if anyone can brush off concerns expressed by schumer is him because he'll probably never run for anything again and he has a zillion dollars. so, what schumer and the
democrats
are saying is quite correct. the bloombergism on
gun control
in practice is a lot more sloppy than in theory. if they get a scalp with pryor, that will set the cause back, for sure and set it back for a while, and that applies generally to anything that causes
republicans
to be closer to
taking over
majority in the
senate
. but what a lobby is supposed to number
bloomberg
's mind --
bloomberg
, by the way, doesn't believe in
political parties
and extrapolates what he beliefs as useless parties to the national political landscape, if that's the idea that you've got to be consistent on the issue and punish people wherever you k can, he's going to do that. one other way -- i'll shut up in a second. one other way i think it's going to be more complicated to use your word before over the long term is that you could argue
bloomberg
and his group is always going to be in a position to put more pressure on
democrats
than
republicans
. and so the idea -- what they've said is, this cycle there happen to be a lot of vulnerable
democrats
. the four that they've chosen are not -- let's not count baucus, but the ones they've chosen is the organic function of that's where the money is and that's who's vulnerable. clearly they'll be in a position to move the democratic constituencies more than republican constituencies forever.
>>
that's other thing, george, the
republicans
-- part of this is sessentially
republicans
got past this because it didn't get to the
floor of the house
and you didn't get hundreds of
republicans
to vote on this.
>>
i think that's true, but i think if --
bloomberg
is playing -- the mantra in d.c. is it's about the first vote, it's about the last vote. what happens when you keep pushing like this? i think one
bloomberg
may say here, while he is playing the
lawn game
, is that he's not really trying to defeat
mark pryor
. he's not really trying to defeat theme
democrats
. he's trying to put the fear of god in them. have you a year and a half before midterm, get something to change their position, nine out of ten constituents back, it gets to the house and we see what happens with the
republicans
. boehner lets it pass with democratic votes or it fails and you hammer
republicans
that vote against it. that's the strategy here.
>>
there was something under the radar in
nevada
, the republican governor vetoed a bill that made it through legislature this year,
background checks
in
nevada
. and
bloomberg
's group was heavily involved in the campaign to get this enacted. you could say it was sort of a success for them they got this through to legislature and maybe this gives them a new target, for the upcoming election with sandoval running for re-election in
nevada
but this is also -- you know, in the end, they ran the same thing at the state level in a pro-gun state they ran in the
senate
in
nevada
.
>>
it's really important to understand that republican voters and republican politicians are not necessarily persuadable on this issue by these kind of arguments we've been seeing, heart-rendering cards these folks have been sending to their congressmen and senators about how awful it is to lose a father. don't work the same way because this is an issue in which the mindset is completely different. a liberal looks at a card like this and says, isn't it awful these
school shootings
that keep on happening. let's bring those to the forefront because that helps us and makes people want more
gun control
. but if you think like a conservative and you think in terms of good people and
evil people
, the predominance of the
evil people
makes you want less
gun control
, more guns. if the
bad guys
have a
machine gun
--
>>
the good guy with the gun verse the
bad guy
with the gun --
>>
it's very important for liberals to understand this. i hear it all the time, is it going to take ten more
school shootings
, 100, 1,000 more
school shootings
before people realize how dangerous guns are? no. the more school --
>>
if that won't do it, what will?
>>
mobilizing
democrats
.
>>
yeah, it has to be a
party line
--
>>
i guess it is mobilizing people who believe in
gun control
. i mean, and maybe goes back into the conversation we had earlier in the show today about, you know, building the party, building demographics, going out, mobilizing voters, getting people who are eligible to vote but are not voting or not registered to vote to do so. something has to give. this is an enormous problem on
gun control
, on immigration, on every single issue we're dealing with. congress is at a standstill. it's ludicrous to hear an argument --
mayor bloomberg
, please don't do this because we're better off with a democratic majority in the
senate
but the democratic majority didn't do anything either so you're basically saying, let's stand for status quo.
>>
if anything on guns happens before the election, it's going to have to involve some of these
red state
democrats
who voted no and involve some
republicans
in the
senate
. we'll talk about what it would take, what it might take, what it could possibly take to get those people on board to get this into
senate
, into law before the next elections. [old english
“ ”