IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

The Rachel Maddow Show, Transcript 11/4/15

Guests: Chris Hayes, Pete Williams

CHRIS HAYES, "ALL IN" HOST: And on Friday, do not forget to catch the Democratic forum hosted by the one, the only Rachel Maddow, exclusively on MSNBC. And the aforementioned Rachel Maddow, her show begins right now. Good evening, Rachel. RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: That was very kind of you. I also want you to know that I will not be asleep between now and that forum. HAYES: You people watching this may think you are joking about that. MADDOW: No. HAYES: But that is a true thing, because I know you well enough to know that`s true. MADDOW: Even if I take the time to lie down in bed, I`m staring at the ceiling freaking out. Thank you very much, Chris. I appreciate it, man. HAYES: All right. MADDOW: And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. There`s a lot of news going on in the world right now and even into tonight. We have a lot coming up on tonight`s show. There`s news tonight that one major household name, presidential contender, may not be getting into next week`s Republican debate for the first time. A new person at the kid`s table. We`re going to have that story ahead. There`s also news tonight on what may be the death of a political issue that both Republicans and Democrats have been up in arms about for eight straight years now. The Keystone pipeline is looking like it may be dead after all these years of fighting over it and there`s really interesting news on that tonight. But the biggest news in the country and the biggest news in the world right now concerns the plane crash of MetroJet Flight 9268 this past weekend over Egypt. That terrible crash of that flight full of Russian vacationers happened on Saturday. All 224 people on board were killed when the plane came down over the Sinai Peninsula. This is a map showing Egypt as a whole, the Sinai Peninsula is this part over here which is geographically and topographically quite separate from the rest of Egypt. In the Sinai, they talk about the rest of Egypt as mainland Egypt. But the Sinai is where the plane came down shortly after taking off from a relatively small airport at the international resort town at the very tip of the Sinai Peninsula, a town called Sharm el-Sheikh. That plane crash, as you know it happened on Saturday, just a terrible story. The crash has remained in the news every day since Saturday because authorities don`t know what that brought that plane down. That remains the case tonight, bottom line. There`s still no official pronouncement that anybody knows exactly what happened to that plane. But when the story of this plane crash turned today, to not just the distant prospect, not just the threat but as of today the real fear that that plane might have been brought down by a bomb -- it was interesting that that news today came first from the U.K. of all places. The British government convened an emergency cabinet meeting today and after that emergency cabinet meeting, the British prime minister put out an order and a statement. The order was to halt all flights to Britain from that Sharm el-Sheikh airport. In a statement that rocketed around the world, explaining why that order had been issued by the British government, the prime minister said, quote, "While the investigation is still ongoing, we cannot say categorically why the Russian jet crashed, but as for information has come to light we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device." And that`s why this is the biggest news in the world today. The British government has not said what this new information is. That increased their concerns that the flight was brought down by a bomb rather than because of mechanical failure or some other reason, but whatever. They learned that led them to this conclusion caused the British government to take this rather drastic step of not letting anymore planes bound for the U.K. take off from that airport at Sharm el-Sheikh. And we`ll have more on the logistical importance on that in a moment. But after the British made this announcement, and made this policy decision today, NBC News was told by a U.S. official that, indeed, the evidence indicates that it was a bomb that brought down that flight. Again, though, caution, that is not any sort of official pronouncement from the U.S. government. That is one anonymous official characterizing the evidence that way to NBC News. But there is an official investigation under way. The official investigation is the Egyptians because the crash happened on their territory and it happened to a plane that had just taken off from an Egyptian airport. Investigation involves the Russians because it was a Russian plane full of Russian citizens who died. It involves the French because that plane that crashed was an Airbus A-320. So, it was manufactured by a European company, headquartered in France, and France the home of Airbus is involved in the investigation into when their own planes crash. That investigation also involves the German because that particular plane was built in Hamburg. The investigation involves the Irish because the plane was registered in Ireland. And when you think about that, as the character of this international investigation into what happened with this plane crash on Saturday, that makes it all the more interesting that news about this plane crash took such a dramatic turn toward the prospect of terrorism today with an announcement from the British government because the British government is not one of the countries who`s taking part in that international invest into this crash. Why did this news today come from the British? The reason the British are now such a key part of the story, the reason they have taken such a critical and interventionist interest in what happened here, the context for understanding why they were first to sound the alarm today about this incident and the prospect of terrorism, the reason that they feel so close to this story in Sharm el-Sheikh is because as it happens, there are a ton of British people in Sharm el-Sheikh right now. With this decision to not let flights take off from Sharm el-Sheikh coming back to the U.K., this means there are about 20,000 British citizens who are stranded at that resort town right now, 20,000. And that`s a fairly typical number for this time of year. Round trip flights from London to Sharm el-Sheikh, to this specific place in Egypt, you can get round trip flights, a flight there and back for like $175, round trip airfare. And you`re not mixing up the geography in your head. The U.K. and Egypt are not right next to each other. Flying between London and Sharm el-Sheikh is equivalent of New York City to Bogota, Colombia, which you cannot do roundtrip for $175. But if you want an impulse buy, quick vacation to some place warm because the London fog is bumming you out or something, last-minute vacation packages for an all inclusive holiday, leaving from London, seven straight nights at the Grand Oasis Resort in Sharm el-Sheikh and the flights, all inclusive, everything all in for seven nights, you can get that for 299 pounds, about $460, if you are traveling from London. And the reason they can do package deals like that for British tourists so cheaply, the reason they can do non-stop round trip flights for less than 200 bucks to this place in Egypt is because there`s such a great huge volume of tourist travel specifically by British people to Sharm el- Sheikh. It`s just one of those kind of accidents of tourism marketing and well-trod paths among European tourists. Sharm el-Sheikh is lovely. The mountains come right down to the sea and beautiful snorkeling and there`s nice resorts and where Brits go. British people go to Sharm el-Sheikh on vacation by the tens of thousands. There are tens of thousands of them there every day. And that historical truth has persisted even over the past few years as Islamic militancy in the Sinai Peninsula has become an increasingly hard to ignore violent insurgency. Mostly Islamic militant attacks in the Sinai target military facilities or police and soldiers. In another part of the Sinai Peninsula today, there was a suicide car bombing that killed at least four Egyptian police officers. That was about 300 miles from Sharm el-Sheikh. It was one big coordinated bombing attack ten years ago that did hit the resort town itself. Did hit Sharm el-Sheikh exactly. It targeted tourist areas. There are multiple, simultaneous remote detonated bombs, 88 people were killed, including nearly a dozen British tourists. That was ten years ago. That was 2005. This time last year, one relatively high profile group of militants in the Sinai pledged their allegiance to ISIS and to its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Those Sinai militants started calling themselves the Sinai Province of ISIS, the Sinai Province of the Islamic State. That was about a year ago. And when that specific group immediately claimed responsibility when we learned that that Russian plane had crashed in the Sinai on Saturday, most people blew it off. Most people blew it off as bluster and wishful thinking by that ISIS affiliate. It was perceived as the group wanting credit for something they could not conceivably have had anything to do with. Well, today, that same group issued another claim of responsibility. They said it really was them. They bragged that they would never explain how they did it, but they downed that plane. And you know what? The old cautions and caveats still remain in place. A group like ISIS and its affiliate in the Sinai, they have every incentive in the world to claim that this is their work even if it is not. They would love to get credit for killing this many innocent civilians, particularly now that Russia claims to be fighting against ISIS in Syria as part of Russia`s military efforts to bolster the Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad. I mean, to that point, Russia and its aviation industry has every reason, every incentive to blame this on a bomb or a terrorist attack, even if it`s not a bomb or a terrorist attack, because they would love to divert from any concern that their own plane might have crashed because of just something so dumb as a maintenance issue. But something has happened today in the international scrutiny of this incident if not the official investigation. Something has happened today in the intelligence world that has led Britain to quite literally strand 20,000 of their own citizens on the ground in a very, very, very popular British tourist destination which nevertheless is a place that the British government now believes may have been the origination point of a major international terrorist attack. With no British flights in or out of that airport at Sharm el-Sheikh, how are all those 20,000 British people going to get home? Don`t know yet. But right now, they`re stranded. And again, there`s no official word either from the official investigation or from the U.S. government on the record. But NBC News contact with U.S. government officials has yielded this very provocative but as yet anonymous claim that evidence related to this crash indicates somehow that it may well have been a bomb that brought down that plane. I can`t be more specific about that because that`s the only word that we have. If it was a bomb, if the ISIS claims of responsibility that it was their bomb, if those turn out to be correct, naturally, that would make this not only ISIS` deadliest attack yet on an international target, it would make this one of the deadliest acts of international terrorism of any kind anywhere in the world since 9/11. Joining us now is NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams. Pete, thanks very much for being here. It`s good to have you here. PETE WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Sure. MADDOW: I`m very sorry. I have no audio. I can`t hear you. Pete, if you don`t mind, we`ll have to take a quick break and fix this and we`ll be right back. You can hear me. I can`t hear anything else. We`ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: Joining us is NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams. Pete, I`m sorry about that interruption. Thanks very much for sticking with me. WILLIAMS: Not to worry. These things happen. MADDOW: The word from the British government today was, "As more information has come to light, we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device." Do we have any news about why the U.K. government believes that or why our own government might be leaning that way? WILLIAMS: Yes. I think we do. There`s actually been a pretty consistent message from the British both publicly and backchannel and from American intelligence officials and the Pentagon today. Basically, two tracks of information. One is the physical evidence itself. Now, I should say before I delve into this, something that you said earlier but I think it bears repeating which is no one says they know what happened. There`s no conclusive evidence of what brought this plane down. They don`t know what it was. They still say it might be a mechanical failure. Now, having said that, why are they increasingly saying that they`re growingly concerned that, in fact, was an attack of terrorism? Two channels: one is the evidence itself, the pieces on the ground consistent with the explosive, not definitive and not definitive the other direction. So, it`s part of what the physical evidence doesn`t show and part of what it does show. So, highly suggestive that it was a bomb. Second is the claims of ISIS before this happened that were -- the claims of ISIS, rather, that came out after the crash, both publicly and we`re told some in intercepted communications where ISIS is saying that they did this. Now, again, that`s not definitive either. And if you just take a look at any one of these things, for example, the ISIS claim of credit is coming in a text message and two audio messages and in one of the most recent text message, they say prove that we have not downed it. They say, we will Allah willing declared the method of downing it at the time we want and the form that we see. But this is all post-hawk after the fact, and the normal course for ISIS if you think, for example, about the Garland, Texas, attack is immediately afterwards to be very specific about what they did, charts and graphs, circles and arrows, pictures of people involved and they haven`t done that here. So, you know, all of which is to say it`s very suggestive. There are some things in intelligence that they`re not telling us. We have a sense of what some of it is and we can`t report it. But all of those things together, Rachel, the physical stuff and it`s the intelligence lead them in a direction but don`t get them to the conclusion. MADDOW: Clearly, we have in terms of thinking about ISIS or a group like them as a potential culprit here, we -- obviously, have motive. The question is whether they have means and I think that brings us pretty specifically to the question of whether or not we understand enough about the security of the airport from which this aircraft took off and any security concerns around this airline specifically. Is Sharm el-Sheikh considered to be a dangerous place in terms of terrorist risk at the airport? WILLIAMS: Well, it`s certainly a dangerous part of the world. MADDOW: Right. WILLIAMS: The thinking was that the airport`s security was actually not bad. Now, there are two ways a bomb can get on an airplane. One is that a passenger can carry it on and we have been told that intelligence officials have scrubbed both the passenger manifest and the crew list and haven`t found anyone that was previously known to be connected with terrorism. Now, of course, it could be someone that wasn`t known. The second way is to get it on the cargo and that`s why you`re seeing this second layer of concern about people around the plane, the people who load the baggage and the mail and whatever else may be on that plane. One other point here about the British timing -- I think one of the things that we heard earlier today is, you know, why did they do it right now? And it may not simply be a tipping point of physical evidence and intelligence, but also, the simple fact of the calendar. This is apparently the time, you know, here in the U.S., people change over on the weekend if they`re going to go to the beach, you know? The new people come in on Saturday and the old people leave. Apparently we were approaching that changeover point for Sharm el-Sheikh. Apparently this time of the week and that was another factor that led to British to make this decision about their own flights. MADDOW: And now, of course, the British have the difficult logistical decision about what to do about their 20,000 citizens there left on the ground. WILLIAMS: Right. MADDOW: Pete Williams, NBC justice correspondent, thank you so much. I really appreciate it, Pete. Thank you. WILLIAMS: My pleasure. MADDOW: We`ll be right back. Thanks very much for joining us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: I apologize that we`ve been having spectacular technical difficulties this evening. In which case, I feel like I`m in space and nobody can hear me scream but I believe we`re making normal-sized television with audio and everything and I believe, God willing, that joining us now from Istanbul is my friend Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent, who joins us tonight to talk about this new news and new intelligence on this plane crash. Richard, of course, has been covering ISIS for years. Richard, thanks so much for hanging with us. Sorry about the delay. RICHARD ENGEL, NBC NEWS CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: It`s not a problem at all. Can you hear me? MADDOW: I can hear you. God willing. Yes, thank you. ENGEL: The science works. This magic of television. MADDOW: Let me ask you, Richard, about, obviously, the bottom line here again is we do not know if ISIS is just bragging, taking credit for something that they couldn`t conceivably have done or that they didn`t do in this instance when they say they brought down this plane. If they did bring down this plane, if they did get a bomb on this plane, for example, somehow, would that be a big expansion in terms of what we know about their capabilities particularly in that part of the world? ENGEL: It depends, really. ISIS has enormous capabilities in Iraq and Syria. The group operates tanks, it controls cities, it controls the lives of millions of people. And ISIS has been expanding very rapidly. It is not like al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was difficult to join. You had to earn al Qaeda`s trust. You had to in some cases kick back money to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda didn`t want you unless you could prove you`re worthy. ISIS is not like that. ISIS is actively advertising that if you want to set up your own ISIS outpost, it will fund money to you. So the degree of ISIS` capability depends on place to place. In Libya, they have a very extensive and very effective network. In Sinai, I think it was an opportunity. A U.S. official that I spoke to who said there is confidence that it was a bomb onboard, not something fired from the ground but somehow that a bomb got on the plane, thought that perhaps ISIS saw an opportunity that at this small regional airport in Egypt, security might not have been as tight as it could have been and this was a opportune moment for the group the strike. It`s also just about the one-year anniversary when ISIS declared its allegiance in Sinai to the ISIS main group of the Emir Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. MADDOW: Richard, obviously, we have seen a number of different al Qaeda plots using commercial aircraft. 9/11 most notoriously, but also the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, some of the -- there have been other, cargo plane plots. Al Qaeda is very attracted to using aircraft of all kinds of part of their -- trying to pull off spectacular international attacks. Does that mean we should just expect ISIS to look in that same direction? Is this a surprise? Have we seen ISIS look toward aircraft in the past as ways of trying to get their terroristic message across? ENGEL: Well, airports and aircraft have always been targets for terrorists, even go back to the attacks in the `70s and `80s by Palestinian groups. They have always been something that militant groups have tried to target in order to gain notoriety, to create fear and terror. I was also told that ISIS` capability to target aircraft or to attack a sophisticated airport is still not considered as high as al Qaeda`s. But ISIS is incredibly ambitious. It would attack an aircraft. It would attack a cruise ship. The group has promised to make 9/11 look like a sideshow. So, I think it will look for any kind of opportunity, aircraft or beyond aircraft. MADDOW: Richard, if we do -- if the train of events and the train of sort of noise from the U.K. government and the U.S. government, these assurances, even if they`re so far anonymous assurances that this is starting the look like a bomb, if things going in the same direction, if they get closer to concluding that ISIS was behind this and they did plant a bomb on this aircraft, do you -- do you expect anything in terms of a response either from Russia or the U.K. or the U.S. or anybody else in this? ENGEL: Yes. MADDOW: What do you expect for a response? ENGEL: I expect a big Russian response. If this starts to become the accepted truth and it plays out in the Russian media and as you know, Russian state-controlled media is very powerful, it tends to whip up patriotism. And, right now, Russia`s already engaged in a military campaign in Syria. This could very easily galvanize public support for that campaign. There`s already a degree of public support for that campaign and Russia using this to show off the military might, to show off how it stands with its friend Bashar al Assad, how it is different than the United States which Russia claims doesn`t stand with its allies. So, if that groundswell of public support builds even further after this, which if it`s proved to be a bomb, I think that public opinion will head in that direction and I think we could see Russia very aggressively starting to target ISIS in Syria. And not just opposition groups and people to support Bashar al Assad. So, I think we are going the see a response if it proves to be the truth. MADDOW: Richard Engel, NBC News chief foreign correspondent, getting up at an unholy time of day for us in Istanbul -- Richard, thanks for being with us. I appreciate it. ENGEL: At least there`s audio. MADDOW: Yes, exactly. Which I`m cherishing right now, having not had it far long time. Thank you. All right. We got much more to come tonight, including some stunning polling news that could likely change who`s in the next Republican debate. We`ve actually got a lot ahead. Almost none of which involves me having a working earpiece, so I might just throw this away. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: So, at this time on Monday night, the big breaking news we were covering at the top of the hour is unexpected decision from the company TransCanada, that they were essentially pulling the plug on the Keystone XL pipeline. TransCanada wrote to the State Department asking that the U.S. government suspend the application to build that massive and hugely controversial pipeline, which would take hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil every day from tar sands country up in Canada, all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. This pipeline, of course, has been the subject of widespread protests and very loud political activism not to mention loud partisan taunting from the Republican side throughout the Obama presidency. TransCanada asking the Obama administration to essentially shelve their application seems like basically the last we would hear about Keystone for a very long time, certainly for the remainder of the Obama presidency. But a funny thing happened on the way of TransCanada asking the Obama administration to please suspend their application for Keystone. The Obama administration has now said, no. We will not suspend your application. This is kind of amazing. The State Department got this letter from TransCanada on Monday. They have been reviewing this proposed pipeline for years now. They initially reacted to the letter saying, "Thanks, TransCanada, got your letter, we`ll get back to you". But then, today, they officially responded and said, essentially, yes, we understand you`d like us to stop our review process for your pipeline, but we`re going to go ahead and not do that. The State Department says they intend to complete the review of Keystone, a review which has been under way to great controversy for years now. I`m not sure what TransCanada was expecting for a response when they tried to pull their project, but I imagine this wasn`t it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Given how long it`s taken, it`s -- it seems unusual to me to suggest that somehow it should be paused yet again. REPORTER: Does he see this as something he wants to finish, complete, get off the plate before he leaves office? EARNEST: The president has said that before, yes. That he would like to have this determination be completed before he leaves office. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: He would like to have this determination completed before he leaves office. TransCanada would please like to not have this determined before he leaves office. TransCanada has asked that this whole entire process put on hold presumably so they could come back to the issue with a fresh president who isn`t this one. The Obama administration instead appears to be going full speed ahead. Once that announcement from TransCanada on Monday night, it was interesting. The activists who`ve been opposing Keystone for years, you know, they celebrated. They started to thanking each other for having supported the campaign to stop Keystone, but they also started pushing explicitly for the White House to not let TransCanada off the hook yet. Don`t let them pause this process. Quote, "Behind the end of nine innings, they`d like to suspend the game until after the next election. They`re simply trying to avoid the final ignominy of a ruling against them, and President Obama should not give them the satisfaction." It sort of seems like President Obama might not give them the satisfaction. He might just go ahead and rule on this Keystone permit application anyway, whether the company likes it or not. Keystone seems to be trying to die. How it dies might be a very fascinating end to this story. Watch this space. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: The big news, of course, is that Lawrence Lessig just won Ohio! A law professor who quit his job and staked his run for the presidency in cleaning up all the lousy foul stuff in the process of the democracy, the big anonymous money, the gerrymandering of political districts so the same party always wins that district year after year. Yes, sure, Larry Lessig may have just quit the presidential race this week, but he did just win Ohio last night. Voters in Ohio last night by a 40-point margin decided that Ohio shouldn`t be able to gerrymander its districts anymore. To get a sense of the problem with this in Ohio, by 2012, Ohio`s districts were so screwed up and so partisan that even though Democrats got more than 50,000 more votes than Republicans did in that year`s elections, Republicans still, even though they got less votes, still got almost 60 percent of the seats in the Ohio House, because the partisan districts were gerrymandered so badly. That happened in 2012. But according to Ohio voters, that should not happen again. It was a vote last night on a constitutional amendment to do districts in that state on a non-partisan basis from here on out. That amendment passed with 71 percent of the vote. It`s not for Ohio`s seats in Congress. This is just for the state legislature. But still, 71 percent of the vote. That`s a big deal. And somewhere in America, in law school faculty housing somewhere, Lawrence Lessig is either celebrating Ohio or cursing himself for getting out of the presidential race too soon. In the great state of Pennsylvania, there were three open seats on the Supreme Court in that state. And yes, while, it is creepy to vote for judges, particularly in partisan terms, in Pennsylvania last night, Democratic candidates took all three of the Supreme Court seats that were open. That will give Democrats a majority on that state`s Supreme Court for basically a decade. Now, is it weird to talk about a partisan majority on a court? Yes, it is. But Pennsylvania`s partisan majority on the Supreme Court is now solidly Democratic after the most expensive judicial elections in state history. In the big cities of Indianapolis and Charlotte, North Carolina, and Orlando, Florida, and Philadelphia, as well as Salt Lake City in Utah, voters in all the cities picked the Democratic and/or progressive choice for mayor. Salt Lake City, in fact, looks like it`s getting the first-ever openly gay mayor. And, yes, it`s the Salt Lake City in Utah. In Maine and in Seattle, voters last night approved new measures for the transparency of money in politics and public financing of elections, Maine and Seattle both. In New Jersey, Republicans thought they would whittle away at the Democrats` majority in the state assembly last night, but instead, Democrats increased the number of seats that they hold in the state assembly. So, Democrats have bigger majorities in the New Jersey state legislature than they have had at any time since the 1970s. And Jefferson County, Colorado, there was a recall effort last night against three Tea Party school board members trying to throw local history curriculum to make it more patriotic even if it was a little less historic. The Tea Party activists on the school board got support of the Koch brothers` network and they are very, very, very deep pockets. But that recall effort in Jefferson County, Colorado, was successful last night and all three Tea Partiers lost their seats. In Mississippi, before last night, there was precisely one statewide office holder in Mississippi who was a Democrat. He`s the state`s Democratic attorney general whose name is Jim Hood. And before last night he was the only Democrat left in statewide office in Mississippi. Tonight, Jim Hood remains the only statewide elected Democrat in Mississippi because Jim Hood beat the odds and beat the geopolitical headwinds and held on to the seat last night as attorney general in Mississippi`s statewide elections last night. And other than that -- things didn`t go great for Democrats and progressives on election night 2015. I mean, if you were rooting for the blue team last night, those things that I just mentioned, those were probably the things that you were cheering about. Those were the available straws if you wanted to do some grasping at straws in terms of progressive victories last night on election night in America. But elsewhere, and mostly it was not a good night for the blue team and the Republicans and the conservatives did pretty great. Just look at Mississippi. Up ticket and down ticket from Jim Hood in Mississippi, the Republican governor of the state re-elected after running basically unopposed, because the Mississippi Democratic Party couldn`t get it together to pick themselves a Democratic candidate for governor who anyone had ever heard of. Mississippi also last night upped the size of their Republican majority in the House. They`re now at something quite close to a super majority in terms of Republican rule in the state legislature. In Virginia, Democrats thought that they were going to win the State Senate last night. They only needed to flip one Senate seat to take control, but they failed at that effort. Virginia Senate is still Republican. Houston, Houston, Texas, is now the largest city in the country that does not have a nondiscrimination ordinance. It`s also the only big city in Texas without a nondiscrimination ordinance. That led the human rights campaign to ask the NFL today to maybe rethink their plans to hold the 2017 Super Bowl in Houston in a little more than a year from now. But today, the NFL said they`re not changing their plans. They will keep the Super Bowl in Houston in 2017 despite the city last night repealing the nondiscrimination ordinance. It is now legal for you to get fired or thrown out of your housing or any number of other things in Houston just because somebody thinks you`re gay. And then there`s Kentucky. Republican Matt Bevin is now governor- elect despite basically all the polls in the state predicting that the race would go the other way. Matt Bevin, Republican Matt Bevin won the governorship last night, turning the state of Kentucky red. He will take over from a Democratic governor. He`s the first Republican governor of Kentucky in decades. Last night`s election makes Matt Bevin the second Republican governor of Kentucky literally in the last four decades. That race was just a huge upset for Democrats. All the polls going into election day show that Democrat Jack Conway would win. But it was Matt Bevin in the end, and not by a small margin. The other Kentucky race a little lower down the ticket that has really big, national implications was surprisingly enough the race for state auditor. The Democratic incumbent state auditor in Kentucky, I know it doesn`t sound like an important position, right, for nationwide implications here but follow this. The Democratic incumbent is a guy named Adam Edelen. He lost his seat last night. He`s going to be replaced by a Republican. This is a down ticket race and the result is a huge deal because there`s a lot of talk that the very talented Mr. Edelen was the Democratic rising star in Kentucky politics and a lot of people were expecting him to run a very tough campaign for the United States Senate against Rand Paul this time next year. Now that Adam Edelen has lost the statewide elected office as auditor, it`s now a much more open question of whether he`ll wage a run against Rand Paul for Senate, and if he can, whether he might win or whether any Democrat in Kentucky can. That also makes it a little bit of an easier ride for Rand Paul who`s been facing charges, facing calls from Kentucky Republicans and even national Republicans to drop out of his presidential race and focus on his Senate bid since the Senate seat is so hard to hold on. That pressure is going to ease up considerably on Rand Paul now that Adam Edelen no longer has a statewide elected job in Kentucky. So, big developments last night in Kentucky and across the country and big down ticket results across the country for Democrats, not just last night but over a period of the last couple of years that Democrats are starting to get alarmed about. And the person I most want to talk to about that joins me next. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: In the 2014 midterm elections, the Democratic Party suffered fairly stunning losses. I mean, not just on the national level where Republicans did great and Democrats did badly, but down ticket, state legislatures, governors races across the country. It was for the Democrats in a word "devastating". That is not my word. That is what the Democratic Party had to say about itself in their own postmortem analysis of what happened to the party in 2014. Quote, "We have suffered devastating losses at all levels of government since 2008, including 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats, 910 legislative seats, 30 state legislative chambers, 11 governorships." Last night, Democrats suffered another loss on top of that one, losing the hotly contested race for governor in Kentucky. That one flips red, too. So, make that 12 governorships lost by the Democratic Party since 2008, and counting. A man named Chris Hayes today called this phenomenon and I quote, "the absolute decimation of local Democratic parties in red states in the Obama era." Absolute decimation? Really? Joining us now is that man, Chris Hayes. (LAUGHTER) HAYES: Not the decimator. MADDOW: Not the decimator. HAYES: The chronicler of said decimation. MADDOW: Absolutely decimation? HAYES: Well, I don`t think that`s an overstatement. I mean, I think that -- well, so there`s bunch of things happening, right? So, one of this kind of a partisan geographical realignment, which has been a long time and coming about the South and the South turning over to the Republican Party, the once solid Democratic South. It`s taken a very long time to get there. My favorite vestigial example of how long it`s taken is Kim Davis was a Democrat -- MADDOW: Yes. HAYES: -- until this whole thing went down. Why was she a Democrat? Because a local party machine that got her essentially elected was a Democratic machine, because that Democratic machine hadn`t been there since the civil war, right? So, it has taken a long time and some ways that`s not anyone`s fault. That`s kind of makes sense. I mean, the South is a conservative place. The Republicans is a conservative party. Kim Davis should be a Republican based on her belief system. We had though seen the completion of that project in a totally stunning way. I mean, we have supermajorities throughout the Deep South, in Alabama and Mississippi, where they have a near supermajority. You have also seen, thanks to the massive turnout problems Democrats faced in 2010 and 2014, big margins in the non-red states South, right? You have the problem in Ohio or you have in Wisconsin or you have -- in Florida, which let`s remember Barack Obama won twice, right? MADDOW: Right. HAYES: Really big margins for Republicans and this is something we have seen throughout the country, not just in the Deep South but most pronounced in the Deep South. MADDOW: So, you`re saying that there`s a geographic way to understand what`s happening in the Deep South and definitely the Obama era Democratic Party tried to make inroads there, right? The big effort in North Carolina, for example. HAYES: Yes. MADDOW: Including the North Carolina hosting the Democratic convention in 2012. HAYES: Yes. MADDOW: The big hope, the big blue hope in Georgia in 2012. There`s been efforts to fight that but you`re saying that`s essentially geographically cooked. But then there`s something else going on in other parts of the state that doesn`t make sense in terms of that same geographic partisan realignment that just represents partisan failure? (CROSSTALK) HAYES: Yes, I think there`s a bunch of things and partisan realignment. One, I think there`s a sort of partisan realignment. Geographical partisan realignment, right? Solidification of the red south. Two, Democrats have not figured out how to turn their people out in non- presidential elections, full stop. MADDOW: Right. HAYES: Turnout in Kentucky last night was 30 percent, 30 percent. Democrats can`t win elections with 30 percent turnout, except in very deeply blue places. They sure as heck cannot win an election in Kentucky. Remember, Matt Bevin outperformed Barack Obama by about eight points, OK? So, he did better, but he still lost that state, OK? I`m sorry, Jack Conway outperformed Barack Obama eight points. There`s also the fact that every election is now nationalized. MADDOW: Yes. HAYES: I mean, this is what`s so fascinating to me. Ryan Grim was on last night and he talked about New Hampshire and Iowa. And these candidates going around these town forums, getting asked questions about national political issues. Not like, what are you going to do about the dump they want to put outside Manchester? What are you going to do about ethanol? Which is the traditional thing that happens, right? MADDOW: Now, everybody is saying I saw this thing on FOX News. HAYES: Right. MADDOW: Or I read this thing on X right-wing Web site and I want you to respond to that. HAYES: Because the local media in this country has been eviscerated over the last 10 years, particularly local newspapers, state house reporter. The media people are consuming increasingly is through their Facebook feed, through national news outlets. And so, the politics they`re thinking about is national. And so, every election, it`s an inversion of the all politics is local. Every election is now national, right? So, you try to run to be governor of Kentucky and you want to do these Kentucky things about Kentucky. And they say Barack Obama, Barack Obama, Barack Obama, and that works. MADDOW: Or they say ISIS or they say Sharia law. HAYES: Yes, right. (CROSSTALK) MADDOW: I mean, the question here is whether or not the Democratic Party have anything out for the candidates and the would-be leaders for the party to try to say I know how to fix this? HAYES: They can build capacity, 30 percent in a gubernatorial election in Kentucky is not handed down by God as the ceiling for turnout. You can -- that number can be moved. And if anyone has shown that, it was the Barack Obama campaign 2008 and 2012, that you can if you put in the money and the effort and the organizing and the will, you can get people out. MADDOW: And now, it`s up to some next Democratic genius to figure out how to do it in a year that`s not divisible by four. HAYES: And that`s make or break. MADDOW: Yes. Chris Hayes, the host of "ALL IN" -- thank you for staying late tonight. I hereby apologize to your family through you. HAYES: My great pleasure. MADDOW: Very good. Thanks. We`ll be right back. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: One thing presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has seen a lot on his time in the campaign trail this year is protests against him. There was this protest at the Donald Trump rally in Iowa just a couple of weeks ago. There was this one in Massachusetts right around the same time. And tonight, there was a very interesting Donald Trump protest right outside this very building. It was a protest of a really specific kind with a really specific aim. Because Donald Trump is set to be the host of "Saturday Night Live" this coming weekend. And ahead of that appearance, there`s been an organized effort to try to get NBC to dump Donald Trump of host of "Saturday Night Live" because, of course, about his controversial remarks about immigration and about immigrants. Tonight, as part of that effort, a coalition of Latino groups came to this building and they delivered a big box of petition signatures. They say they`re turning in more than half a million signatures calling on NBC to dump Donald Trump as the "Saturday Night Live" host for this weekend`s show. NBC is declining comment on that petition tonight. Donald Trump, as of now, is still the "Saturday Night Live" host this weekend. Whether that remains the case, stay tuned. We`ll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) MADDOW: There`s some late breaking 2016 news tonight. I hold it in my hot little hands. Late tonight, FOX News has just released their brand-new national Republican poll. And, yes, polls are all interesting, but this one in particular, this may have a hugely important consequence on the race. This may have a hugely important consequence in terms of who gets into the next debate. The next debate for the Republicans is Tuesday. It`s a Republican debate hosted by the FOX Business Channel. In order to qualify to get into that debate, a candidate has to be polling at at least 2.5 percent in the four most recent national polls conducted through November 4th, which is today, as recognized by the FOX Business Channel. OK, so that`s what they`ve said about the criteria. What FOX has said is not which polls they`re going to recognize. So, we`re sort of guessing at this a little bit. But using their previous criteria from the FOX News Channel`s earlier debate, using that as a guide, this is what the polls look like, in terms of who`s going to get in. Down on the bottom there, right on the bubble, you see you have former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. They`re just both just barely qualifying to get into the debate. They`re just above that 2.5 percent cutoff. You also see there New Jersey governor Chris Christie failing to qualify. That`s the three polls that were out before tonight. Remember, the cutoff is tonight at midnight. And now late tonight, we got this brand new poll, the new FOX News poll, in theory because of the cutoff date at midnight, this should be the last poll that factors into who qualifies. And according to the standards FOX Business has set who gets into the debate, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee would need at least 2 percent in this latest poll in order to be in the clear. Chris Christie would need to hit 3 percent or better in order to be in the clear and qualify for the debate. But look what this says. The latest FOX News poll, down at the bottom, you have Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee at 4 percent. That means they should be in. But Chris Christie does not hit 3, he`s only at 2. And when you factor in that news poll, according to the FOX Business criteria, Chris Christie does not make the cut. Now, to be fair, FOX Business will not officially announce who`s in the debate until tomorrow night at 7:00. And remember, FOX Business hasn`t said exactly which polls they`re going to use in the polling average for deciding who`s to qualify. Maybe they`ll fudge it and change which polls they`ve decided to use and they`ll find something favorable for Chris Christie to factor it in. Maybe they`ll find Chris Christie at 2.25 percent is close enough. But it stands right now to our best knowledge, and the best guess of their methodology that Chris Christie is going to be at the kids table on Tuesday night. Drama. That does it for us tonight. We`ll see you again tomorrow. Now, it`s time for "THE LAST WORD." Alex Wagner is in for Lawrence tonight. THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED. END