tv Media Buzz FOX News February 29, 2016 12:00am-1:01am PST
and tomorrow night on "special report, exquisite exquisite bret baier sits down with loretta lynch for her first appearance on fox news. that's it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next "fox news sunday."anmo business network. see you then. on a buzz beater today, two days until super tuesday, the media finally jumping on the trump express. asking if anyone can derail the donald. >> the bigger question at this point, can anyone catch up to donald trump? >> he is definitely going to be dominated. he's going to route nerve tonight's caucus. my vibe is trump is going all the way. >> we said for ted cruz, it's over. for marco, it's over. unless something really draw mattmat -- dra mat being happens. >> you listen to the nervousness. it's line the titanic has taken over the establishment. >> slamming trump in a debate filled with shouting at cnn. they lose control.
>> you're the only person on the stage that's ever been fined for hiring people to work on your projects illegally. >> i'm the only one on the stage that hired people. you haven't hired anybody. >> you get along with nobody. you don't have one republican -- you don't have one republican senator -- >> you should be ashamed of yourself. >> but you're not beating hillary. >> if i can't -- hey, if i can't beat her, you're really going to get killed, aren't you? >> but is the story of the debate changing the media forecast? what do ordinary folks think? what will the conservative commentators who detest trump do if he wins nomination? rich lowry joins us on that. hillary clinton trounces bernie sanders in south carolina with 74% of the vote yesterday. and looks to have a big day on tuesday. are the media convinced the surge is over? plus, as campaign victory spreads across social media with friends dumping friends, is facebook turning toxic?
i'm howard kerts aurtz and this "media buzz." as donald trump prepares for a huge victory in nevada, the narrative for ted cruz. >> do you have to be more careful about that stuff? >> i posted in haste. i should not have done it. i apologized to marco rubio and the campaign. >> trump was soaring and rubio needed to attack trump which he did again and again at the cnn debate in houston. >> that's the only part of the plan? just the lines? >> i thought about the plan. you have many different plans. you'll have competition. you'll have so many different plans. >> now he's repeating himself. >> no i'm not repeating myself. >> what i've seen up here, i mean, first of all this guy is a choke artist and this guy is a
liar. >> one thing that was agonizingly evident as they smacked each other around, wolf blitzer repeatedly lost control of the debate. >> gentlemen, gentlemen. >> i want to clarify something. >> gentlemen. we want to talk about the economy. gentlemen? gentlemen? you have agreed -- >> you have not answered that question. >> you know what? call what you want. call it what you want. people are not going dying -- >> all of you have agreed -- i want to move on. >> hold on. he called me a liar. you mean i can't respond to him calling me a liar zbchlt ? >> go ahead and respond. >> joining us is the host of "full measure" that airs sunday mornings. amy holmes, news anchor at "the blaze." the same pundits said trump is impossible and now saying he's practically unstoppable. amazing.
>> amazing. we're supposed to bring insight and not being doing what i think we're doing this case which is finally coming around to the thing that public already knew and was screaming at their televisions all these months. now we're supposed to take seriously when the news and pundits say now we know what is going on. can you listen to us. >> you say journalists are behind the public in this case. at the debate, amy, marco rubio got good press for trying to attack donald trump. there was so many charges and countercharge that's it may have all gotten lost in the din. >> what we've seen with these debates is that they never seem to hurt trump. he may not do well. he may not respond fully. he may not have a detailed plan. but he keeps gaining points. cheryl, to your point about the media, i think there is this love-hate relationship between the immediate why and donald trump. on the one hand, they were saying donald trump certainly can't win the republican nomination. i mean who could ever imagine that? and, yet, continually throughout this campaign putting their
thumb on the scale by giving donald trump the most free immediate yashgs the mote earned media of any political candidate i think we've ever seen. >> that's in part because he does more news than anybody. >> he's great for ratings. that you this say what was going to happen. >> just the tone of the campaign and the insults we started to see this morning on the sunday shows, trump referring to rubio as little rubio and rubio calling him a con artist and a clown show. i want to play one part of trum thap got overlook ted at the debate in texas. take a look. >> first of all, i don't believe anything telemundo says. >> you are going back on your commitment? >> first of all, very few people listen to your radio show. >> does that work for him? >> it works every time. and there is a love-hate relationship thing works for donald trump a lot better than
it does for the media and the hosts and show hosts and anchors that he goes up against. >> it is hard to moderate a presidential debate when everybody is trying to talk and trampling over the rules. i felt for wolf blitzer. do you agree that things got out of control? >> at times. some of it was design. there is time when he was letting thing goes on and on. that's because in, my view, and having worked at cnn, somebody is in your ear saying, let it go. this is great. let it play. there is another dynamic. the audience was wild. the audiences are stacked and coached. they're trying to create moments. >> coached? >> that is my opinion. they're trying to create moments, good ones for the candidates and bad ones for the opposing candidates. they can turn the tide or feeling of a bad question and make it sound like the answer was good-bye applauding wildly no matter what the answer is and i think we saw that. >> i think the audiences are getting disruptive. in the fall campaign this don't let the audiences cheer. all right, ted cruz, to your point about trump and the way
he's covered by the media and the free air time question, took a whack at the coverage of the donald. take a look. >> a lot of the mainstream media is using kid gloves on donald right now. because they want donald to be the nominee and the instant he's the nominee, they'll unleash every cannon they can to lekt hillary clinton. >> we go through some of the things. here's cruz saying the media wants trump to be the nominee, do you buy that? >> i don't think it's conspiracial that they want him to be the nominee. it is certainly great for business and ratings. i almost think the relationship is like a drug addict. they know he's toxic but they want to keep clasing that ratings high. if he's the republican nominee, listen, the media is going to sit back and cover it relentlessly. get high ratings. tend of the day, do they want him? i think they'll take this a lot more seriously if donald trump was running as a democrat. >> but the ratings are high and reflects the kind of support he
has. people are watching him because they're for him or i'm sure there are a lot of people watching him because they find it entertaining. it still relates to his -- he's putting votes on the stable in these states and winning. >> what about cruz's frayed about kid gloves? i would argue that many interviews, not all, including interviews with me, that he gets pressed a lot. >> you've been easy on him. i'm kidding. >> no to transcriber, sarcasm. but my point is that even when trump gets negative coverage, even when conservative commentators come on, it helps him. he runs against the press. >> exactly right. and so i don't think -- i think the more the press goes after him, the more the establishment goes after him, the better he's going to do. and so, i don't buy the argument that cruz and rubio are putting out there. >> i think the tough test has
come from conservative media. national review dedicated an entire issue to stop trump. the mainstream media, i think they're actually treating him with kid gloves aren't digging into the background nearly as much as conservative media because for conservative media, donald trump is a catastrophe. mainstream media, he's entertainment. >> liberal commentators beat up on him, too. i want to talk about friday. i was in the chair in this studio. didn't get on the air because of trump. he held a news conference with chris christie, the somewhat surprised endorsement from the new jersey governor. then there was a break and he spoke at a rally. cnn and fox and msnbc took much of that live. both of the presser and the rally and we actually timed it. an hour and 12 minutes. cnn, 1 and 15 minutes, msnbc, 1:47. trump was interviewed twice on the postgame show.
does it seem the camera awards the people that makes the decisions. i want to play for you a sound bite involving what some people are saying about the other candidates and whether they should stay in this race. take a look. >> i would say ben carson and john kasich, it's time to move on to the supporters an money can go to someone else. >> it would take a miracle for not only you but john kasich with a delegate situation being what it is to overcome trump. >> a lot of things can happen, bill. >> why do journalists keep telling candidates they should drop out of the presidential race? >> i think people are entitled to that opinion, but ordinary journalists, if you look at we're framing the coverage, it's largely in terms of how to beat trump. what combinations of which votes if people drop out can overcome the momentum that trump has rather than more what you would expect a neutral analysis or neutral reporting of what is happening. they seem to be more than i've ever noticed before, rooting for an outcome and trying to hope and sway and they seem delighted
when rubio and cruz finally -- this is how they termed it, attack trump. the media seemed happy as if it's what they were waiting for. >> the dirty tricks allegations against ted cruz and his campaign, do you think that he -- that cruz made it a story that was about ten times bigger than it had been by firing his communications director rick tyler who apologized on the air? >> that's an interesting point. i think, yes, it did give the story legs. here is another twist and turn, the ted cruz dirty tricks story line. politically, he had to. he was getting a lot of criticism from his own supporters. >> a couple days later, he becomes an msnbc contributor. that struck me as odd. >> certainly. i'm not sure all of msnbc's viewers know that he has this conflict of interest. we'll see if it's on the chyron, former spokesperson for ted cruz every single time he has to say. >> absolutely crazy for cruz to do that right before the vote. i mean that, was just -- if
you're going to do it, do it a couple days later. >> i assume there is more it to. i assume it wasn't for that one act. that said to cruz's supporters, some of whom might otherwise support trump that he doesn't have the same fortitude and backing up his people and sticking to it as trump does. >> what do you think of cheryl's point that at least some in the mainstream media and the way they handicap race seem to want an outcome where there is a one-on-one between cruz and -- excuse me, between trump and marco rubio and have their thumb on the scale? >> i think there's a merging of mainstream media and the establishment. is there something between new york and washington and members of congress and the media and the way they're portraying this race and actually putting their thumb on it. >> and that is why there's a lot of public anger at us in the mainstream media because they feel like we have become part of the establishment and a lot of people see us as anti-trump.
before we go, trump in an interview or was it in a debate? he's done it since. talked about the libel laws. he criticized "the new york times" and "washington post" coverage. he said he's going to make the libel laws tougher and so that if anyone writes purposely negative and horrible and false articles question sue them and win lots of money. your reaction? >> i do have sympathy to the idea that a public figure today has almost no recourse. your attorney will tell you anyway for something that is false and malicious even though the laws are supposed to protect you, it doesn't. there may as well not be one. we have the food fights, feeding frenzies, anything goes. on the other hand, i think, you know, it bothers me the idea of changing libel law we have to be very, very careful. >> right. you can sue now. it is true that if you're a public figure, you have to prove that something was knowingly false and published or aired with reckless disregard for the truth. when we come back, hillary clinton's big win in south carolina last night, are the media again anointing her as
hillary clinton is heading into super tuesday after a stun being victory yesterday. the south carolina primary taking 74% of the vote in a state that bernie sanders didn't even bother to give a speech afterwards. hillary is dogged by the honesty questions as we see in one of the many interviews on msnbc. >> we've been talking about how calculating you were and how it seems to be not the person that we know personally. >> there is kind of come to me over the last month because, you know, it is painful. it is hurtful to have people say oh, we don't trust her or don't
know why she's doing it. >> so, amy, the flip side of the trump question, the press was saying a week ago hillary was in trouble. she had no theme she. she wasn't drawing the crowds. but there is the question we saw in that "morning joe" interview. >> right. i think all of the above can be true. and we see with hillary clin's campaign, she's not generated the same type of just native excitement that bernie sander has. yet, she does have the machine behind her. we saw in south carolina this landslide victory. >> is the press tough on her? >> i think the press is -- they're not as tough on her as they are with conservatives when you look at the e-mail scandal problem that she is under investigation. a lot of conservatives would say this should be disqualifying. yet, you have the "new york times" saying, mrs. clinton, do answer the questions. >> so you think -- can you pick up that. also address whether there, you know, just stunningly massive
south carolina win, i mean it's not even a landslide, that doesn't do it justice. is this touted in part because the press expected hillary to win big? >> they should have expected it for months and months. it was obviously coming. but they totally ignored it. even the narrative that bernie sanders is turning on part of the obama coalition where the one party has never been able to turn on. that is a pretty big part of it. it's been one sided. >> do you think the press was complicit in generating artificial excitement? bernie sanders is tied in iowa. had a big win in new hampshire. the clinton campaign said those are the two weaker states. she would blow them away later. that seems to be happening. did the press kind of get swept up in the sanders moment yum? >> yeah. and i think there is the same reason. wants the contest and a contest is going to get more people interested in washing than otchs
over. it was always going to be this way. it was always going to be this way. and they were pretty brutal on her up through -- and also i think used the sanders surge in iowa and new hampshire to tie all the stuff that was going against her, on honesty and all that, into the narrative. >> interesting twist. editorial pages don't have the clout they used to. liberal editorial page saying hillary clinton is stonewalling and should pay wall street groups, what did you make of that? >> i make of that it's "the new york times" as a whole has taken a viewpoint for whatever reason it seems to be less pro hillary clinton. they've been breaking stories you may not have seen them break against her, maybe five years ago they wouldn't have done it. they're doing it now. >> so you're saying news pages and opinion pages? >> yes. i want to point out the news
instead of deciding which to adopt, we should be doing more of our original reporting. if you look at nevada, i thought this was interesting. i didn't see it reported anywhere. even though they have accord together website at the elections office 100,000 more democratic registered voters, trump won the republican party with huge margin, something like 70,000 votes whereas was it 50 or 70? she won with 6,000 votes on the democrat side even though there are so many more registered democrats there. i think that's just a narrative that is not put out there by anybody. >> got time for a short comment. do you think it's going to remain critical? you think it's too save thoft? >> i think it's soft. i think her feet do need to be held to the fire. in defense of bernie sanders, we haven independent socialist that did far better than anyone thought a year ago. >> anybody. including me. he deserves credit for. that all right, great to see you on this sunday. still ahead, what will
trump is getting a huge amount of air time. monday to thursday this week, cnn had the most mentions of trump, average of 1458 each day, just edging out msnbc, both significantly higher than fox news with 1,078 mentioned. we move over to ted cruz. the numbers are substantially lower. 925 average mentions each day, 780 on cnn, 559 on fox. and rubio with about half of trump's coverage, msnbc with an average of 748, cnn, 656 and fox
with 543. now for this week, virtually no difference than tone for all three networks about 72% negative for trump, 75% negative for cruz. similar to rubio with cnn slightly more negative. democratic race getting about half the attention overall. cnn with 499 average daily mentions of hillary clinton. might be might be with 421, fox with 256. bernie sanders, a bit behind with about 400 mentions each on cnn and msnbc, that's each day. just 184 on fox. both clinton and sanders getting coverage is about two-thirds negative on the three networks but on fox, that rises to 73% negative for bernie. by the way, a similar power in print. trump getting more coverage than cruz in t"the washington post," "new york times" and "wall street journal." rubio is getting half of trump's coverage in the "post" and "the
journal." clinton got somewhat more coverage than sanders in the post and journal and sanders getting more in the "new york times." hillary clinton is getting much more positive coverage in the three papers than donald trump by 13 to as much as 20 percentage points. cnn has banned roger stone for appearing as a guest, this after the discovery of his offensive tweets against cnn contributors. stone wants called our reporter abusive diva and borderline retarded and roll land martin a stupid negro, moron and token and suggested he eat more fried chicken. they were released by "media matters." stone attacked knnavarro again d called cnn biassed and said it seems the clintons said do not interview me again in the future because i'm not pc. turns out stone who also appeared on fox news in recent
months has made disparaging comments about megyn kelly in the past. fox grodropped him but there is bone. stone should be asked about the tweets the next time he shows up on fox. "ahead on "media buzz," facebook turns mean spirited. people are feuding and unfriending each other. but first, what do ordinary voters think about how the press conference trump?
we explored a question on the night of the dweeb a focus group in houston. >> how many of you think the media is fair overall to donald trump? raise your hands. so it's most of you. all the media is saying is that he's hit a ceiling, he'll be out of the race in a month. that's all you hear. i don't think they've been fair.
>> so then the question becomes, is the media manipulating trump or is trump manipulating the media? >> he's manipulating the media. he is manipulating the media. what he does is what he does as a ceo. >> i read that trump says yes to every interview and most other candidates are selective with their interviews. a lot of people won't come on fox news or where ever. trump will go anywhere. he is on might be might snbc. >> they want trump to be the freak show that represents the republican part so we will lose. >> joining me in washington is frank lunts. they want him to be the freak show representing the republican party. >> hopefully i'm not one of the freaks. the question is fair. they're asking questions to cause him to explode. and he does. he gives them the ammunition. >> in a way that generallyists don't do with other candidates? >> i was watching chris wallace on this network this morning, absolutely held trump's feet to
the fire. and some of the stuff that trump said i thought was controversial. i give credit to chris wallace. you know what? what that respondent said there was true. trump does give the media the chance to get at him. he does every interview. he's on tv. this morning on washington, d.c., he was on competing channels at the same time. >> chris wallace is also tough on ted cruz this morning. people say free air time if he's being questioned by junlisourna, we want more of that. >> people want to hear what donald trump has to say. >> others in the group said they may be giving him too much air time. one man pointed out, he is out there putting himself in the line of journalistic fire. let me play something else from the focus group we did. fascinating responses. some of the talk turned to marco rubio. >> why is it that when i read the blogs, i always see complaints from trump people that the media doesn't treat him well. what is the problem? >> it seems like the rubio
channel. >> do you agree with that? >> yeah. >> no. >> why do you say that? >> everything we hear is, you know, rubio this. he's the little darling. and the snide remarks. >> so people are convinced that fox or some other channel or some other network is for or against rubio or trump or cruz. as if there's -- everyone is getting marching orders. >> i'm shocked. that would never be on cnn. that would never be on msnbc. good for you for putting that on. yes. i get it all the time. if i go to the trump blogs, fox is in the pockets of rubio. if you go to cruz blogs, it's in the pockets of trump. if you go to the rubio blogs, it's in the pocket of everybody else. people see what they want to see and disregard the rest. we're seeing things through rose colored glasses and becomes impossible to be fair which is why the debates are so important. because it's the one time that you can actually hold a candidate accountable. >> briefly on rubio. the notion he's a media darling, after he had that performance
where he was hammered for being robotic and finished fifth in new hampshire, everybody in media beat up on him and some said he was finished. it's not like the entire business is pumping up this guy. >> he's a great communicator. they're con flinflating it with support from the media. he sounds good and reasonable, therefore, the kbleed is media with him. that's not the case. rubio won the last two or three debates. >> in your view? >> in the view of the focus groups yet it hasn't moved numbers. that's what i think is significant that these debates, we're now just about march and these debates even though they're still watched by 14 or 15 million people, the debates don't have the impact that they did because people are no longer undecided. >> so it doesn't matter what questions journalists asks at the debates. you're saying the race is getting kind of frozen despite all the focus on the way we cover it? >> when they ask questions about the persona, which the public
has a right to know, the audience boos. they think that it's an attack. when they ask questions about policies, they have dealt with almost every policy. there have been ten debates. zbh right. >> they covered everything at this point. there is nothing new. the only way to get something new is to watch them fight with each other which is entertaining. it is not informative. >> i see rubio who is repeatedly saying throughout the campaign that he's running on a positive message saying it's not his job to knock down the republican. he is clearly shifting tactics. he's been hammered by trump. saying things like trump is a con artist. he says that in every other sentence now, saying things like trump is a clown act. does that change the tone of the media coverage in the way the press views marco rubio? >> not only does it change the coverage, it gives full license for everyone to be as rude as can you possibly be. >> you're saying the media sen
couraging the war of words? >> definitely. camera is on. red light is on. go. the problem is it created an uncivil environment. my focus groups, i could not stop people from talking. we went live and i actually had two women speaking. i could not pay attention as we went live because they were so angry with each other that they were arguing. we lost the civility and decency. i hope we get i back between now and november. >> i'm with you on. that i think the media, blarly when it comes to donald trump, really missed this year, the anger and frustration out there that is now so evidence. thank you for being here. nice to see you. after the break, rich lowry's national view declared war on donald trump. where does that leave him and other conservatives if trump wins the gop nomination? later, things get ugly as they boycott other then msnbc as she may have talked herself out of a job.
he keeps winning primaries. is his vision closer to that of republican voters than yours and your magazine? >> well, i think it may be that this particular year, the conditions are right. and trump's candidate attributes are right and the field is fracturing just right for a populous rather than a conservative to win the nomination. but it's obviously still conservative party or trump wouldn't be going out of his way to try to sell himself as a conservative the way he is. >> right. it's not just you. it's george will and joan goldberg and eric ericsson. let's assume trump does win the nomination. is there any way when he's the party candidate that can you say perhaps we were hasty and he has good qualities? >> well, we'll see. one thing we want to see is if he actually does win the nomination is how he runs as a general election candidate.
our fear would be that this particular moment is the high water mark for donald trump's conservati conservatism. >> interesting. you said we'll see. i thought you would say no way. and by the way, you know, to the extent that surprised me, there were a lot of republicans who kind of pushed back when you came out with that special issue and say, you know, you're a bunch of intellectual elitist. you sounded like you were leaving the door open to say, for example, donald trump would be preferable to hillary clinton. >> well, we'll have to see. it's a collective decision made by our editorial board. the question will be does donald trump represent our beliefs and values enough for us to put our official stamp on him. again, we'll have to see. we're very proud of what we did. our role, howie, is not to get on anyone's band wagon. it's not to read the polls. it's not to get with the program or fall in line. it's to represent conservatism
and these ideas and our principles. and bill buckley created founded us for that role. and i'm absolutely certain he'd be proud of what we did. and, in fact, when he wrote about donald trump 15 years ago, he called him a narcissist and a demagogue. >> as you pointed out. i understand national review represents a collective decision. you also appear on television and give your own opinion. bill kristol, for example, said there is noi way he could support trump and he would support someone running from the right as far as a third party co. you see yourself going there? >> again, it totally depends. we need to siee the way trump runs and how the field breaks out. there may be a third or fourth candidate in this race f there is someone closer to what we really believe, that's going to be very tempting for us. but in terms of my commentary and in terms of our reporting, we're going to cover trump the way we do anyone else. when he's wrong, we're going to ding him. when he's right, we're going to support him.
>> so you're not willing to say right now -- i understand it's a long campaign, a lot can happen. we'll see how this looks if a month and how it looks in three months. but you're not willing to say that there's no way if all the harsh criticism you made of donald trump that there is no way you could possibly support him as the gop nominee? >> we're going to have a debate about that and see it going on twitter this weekend. we have conservatives having a debate among themselves. >> richard, deflecting the question. is there any way you could see yourself ultimately supporting donald trump? >> no, i have answered the question about three or four times. our editorial board will collectively make the decision when and if he gets nomination and when we see how he's going to run. howie, he hasn't really run as much of a conservative to this point. it could get much worse. this guy is a salesman. he clearly is playing to republicans to some extent. i'm not convinced he believes half the stuff he says. there may nobody case that he's
they say you shouldn't spoil your kids. but your grandkids? how about front row seats to the best show in town? and that is why you invest. the best returns aren't just measured in dollars. td ameritrade®. once confined to facebook, it turned as polarizing in the presidential election. friends who like trump.com helps you identify such supporters and kick them out of your associate media circle. joining us is a technology executive here in washington. i'm really seeing this on my facebook page. the tone and particularly people yelling for and against trump is not very facebook-like. what do you see? >> facebook, you think of this
friendly neighborhood where i would go to see store yifz my friend's travels and pictures of my friend's kids or dogs. now as you log on, it is comments, fights being picked between people on facebook pick people on facebook. and it is deteriorated a lot in my opinion in the past few months. >> more like twitter where you expect to see brawls breaking out. i saw randomly people deleting people for backing trump. madeline cain. a bernie supporter recently blocked me after she objected to the unnamed bernie supporter calling hillary and wall street hooker and worse. things that i can't say on the air. >> the things that surprise me, people coming out of the woodwork that i didn't know had political views. one of my friends shared a story from a news outlet on trump with the comment yes if you intend to
donald trump, unfriend me. >> i want nothing further to do. you are dead to me. >> i don't want anything to do with you at all. >> that's the thing, a lot of people who i didn't know were interested in politics, now seem energized and engaged and are using harsh language. >> there is 145 million users on facebook. now there are 1.6 billion users on facebook two elections later. we are spending more and more time on facebook. it's embedded in our daily lives. we are going on line spending 20 minutes on facebook every day getting all these views. >> you probably spend hours on facebook. but you are not the typical user. >> let's not talk about that in this segment. but it's become engrained in our lives. >> could this hurt mark
duckerberg's brabd and could it be permanent. >> the last thing facebook wants is for people to stop engaging with facebook. vitriolic and negative sentiments. now we don't only have the like button. we have angry face. >> and also a love button. >> correct. but -- you know, we tweeted about the story right before we came on. and kate on twitter spend responded with facebook being more toxic. she says i engage less, i stay away from facebook as much as possible because it's stressful. it's stressful to go on facebook for people. >> i think that hits it. on one hand it's a great platform, this democracy in action. but the more it becomes people yelling at each other or saying i am not going to be friends with you because of your political views it doesn't seem like a friendly place. facebook was founded on making and cultivating friends. i'm wondering whether this is going to really going to turn
some people off. >> i think that facebook is probably concerned about that, too. and their hope is probably after the election cycle that it turns back around and there is more sieve i willity that comes back to facebook. >> what can facebook do? it has created this platform and people can be friendly or otherwise. >> they can unfriend people, which i'll admit i have done before. >> great to see you, let me know what you think on facebook on this all important question. still to come, melissa harris perry's allegation against msnbc as she walks off the show. "the five," coming up.
>> all right, hello, everyone, i am here with juan and eric and melissa and this is "the five," at 5 o'clock in new york city. >> welcome to our special "sunday live," of "the five," two days before the most crucial election day yet, super tuesday. will that be the day hillary clinton looks up the democratic race? more on that in a moment. first, to the gone showdown, donald trump is about to hold a rally in alabama and ted cruz will hold one shortly in oklahoma. we are keeping a close eye on that. marco rubio will hold an event in virginia and he and cruz have declared all o