saturday. smerconish is up next. voting with conviction. i'm michael smerconish. can anything shake donald trump's hold on the republican nomination? the polls are nothing if not consistent. here's what they show. joe biden and donald trump are the likely favorites to win their party's presidential nomination. as of today, that matchup is close viewed nationally or by battleground states, it's probably trump who is in the lead. polls show americans overwhelmingly think the country is headed in the wrong direction. trump benefits from the perception that he's best for the economy and kept the united states out of war. biden perceived by many as being too old for the job, of course, as bad as the polling has been for biden, tuesday's off year elections for big for the democrats. big in ohio, kentucky, virginia. from the day after coverage in the "washington post," there was this. for democrats, tuesday's results were an ant dote. polls don't vote. it quickly became a post tuesday mantra, though biden's challenges are serious and will remain. tuesday's results concentrated in a few states and with voter turnout lower likely to be will vote for president is not a reliable indicator of what lies ahead. to face biden, trump first needs to secure the republican nomination. here again, the polls paint a consistent picture that trump is far ahead of his gop opponents. this week for the third time, he skipped a gop debate. that's probably the clearest sign of his command. this is all despite hum being four times indicted. plus being in the midst of a new york civil fraud trial, in which the judge has already found him liable. the only question being litigated is the amount of money damages. meanwhile, there are efforts being waged right now to deny him ballot access based on an interpretation of the 14th amendment, which contends he's procolluded from running buzz he engaged in insurrection. here's the thing. the legal peril surrounding donald trump thus far has been to his political benefit. his hold on the gop has increased with every indictment. right or wrong, the perception among republicans and some independents is that the establishment has coalesced to deny voters the opportunity to return donald trump to office. "the wall street journal" correctly framed the resulting question with this headline. will trump be indicted into office? unknown is whether this pattern would hold if trump were not just indict ed, but actually convicted. as of now, trump is scheduled to face trial next march for the election interference case before the judge in federal court in washington, d.c. that's right in the middle of republican primary voting. so what happens if trump is t tried and convicted next spring? while there was some indication about that in "the new york times" college poll that landed with a thunder clap this week, that's the poll that showed trump leading biden in 5 of 6 battleground states. as the times analysis noted, if the former president is convicted and sentenced, mas may allies expect hull to be, then 6% of voters in arizona, nevada, pennsylvania and wisconsin say they would switch their votes to mr. biden. that would be enough, potentially, to decide the election. but is it really so clear cut? recently, politico revealed that a conservative antitrump pac called win it back tested four campaign ads intended to highlight trump's legal troubles. the ads were then shown to focus groups of republican primary voters, politico obtained 260 pages of data revealing how they were received. none of the four moved support away from donald trump. in fact, three of them caused trump's support to grow. the most pointed of the ads featured a man saying this. >> i've been with trump from the start. but truthfully, i don't know what happens if he is kwilkted while running. what happens then? what would that look like? i don't think any of us can see that crystal ball what that's going to look like, other than just biden cruises. let's just say that can't happen. >> that ad that raised the prospect of a trump conviction actually performed the worst in a hypothetical matchup against ron desantis. the bottom loine is this. this effort to harm trump with republican voters by highlighting the prospect of his conviction actually helped him. no wonder then that the commercials were shelved. never aired. joining me now is alex eisenstaff, reporter for politico. thank you so much for being here. so tell me about the pac. who are these people? what was the aim? >> sure. this was a pac that was designed expressly to stop donald trump from winning the republican nomination. it has linked to another conservative group called the club for growth, which has warred with trump in the past. this group has run millions of dollars of ads in early primary states targeting trump. it doesn't support any other candidate, but what they have done is they have done a lot of research into what ads might work, what ads might not work. so i was able to obtain copies of ads they did not run, as you mentioned, were designed to try to highlight trump's legal difficulties and to make the case that if you were to be nominated for republicans, he would have a lot of problems against joe biden because he would be dealing with these numerous cases next year. those ads failed. they haven't run. and people are getting a chance to see them until now. so that's what's going on in this particular situation. >> you have looked at 260 pages of analysis from these focus groups. what stands out? what was the reaction? >> what stands out is that all these ads failed. in fact, of the four ads that they tested in terms of its response from the republican primary voters, three of them had the impact of increasing trump's support in the primary. the analysis of how people reacted to some of these ads, a lot of them were negative. people don't like the idea that this group was out there attacking trump, telling people that trump was about to be potentially even convicted, raising that prospect. it was something that just did not play over well with people who viewed these a ads. so they weren't run. >> i'm going to show a part of another one. i want to underscore what i found interesting was the approach. this is going to be from a female spokesperson. the gist is the same, i was with trump, i like trump, like the policies of trump, but now what i see come ing with all the leg trouble, let's roll it. then you can comment. >> i have been a trump defender from day one. i feel like he was never given a fair shot. it's tough for me to say, but i really don't want that baggage now. they will sensationalize all of the trump trials. just too much distraction. biden is going to trump trump. give me a candidate that's going to give me a win. >> here's what occurs to me. i might be surprised by this, you may have been surprised by this. the voters watching and cnn might be surprised. you know who is not surprised? the individuals on that debate stage in miami this week. this is the explanation a as to why none of them go after trump and say, maybe chris christie is the exception, but none of them go after him saying this guy is about to be convicted. they get this. >> absolutely. it's a good bet they are seeing the same polls that this group saw. they were thinking about how to deal with these kinds of questions surrounding donald trump. here's the deal. what this shows big picture is trump's hold on the party is really quite strong, as we head in towards iowa voting, which is just a couple months away. and in fact, these legal troubles they have strengthened his hold on the party. that he's the victim. and so it -- >> "the wall street journal," this was the head lien i flashed on the screen that said you're going to indict him right into office. they discussed your work at politico. so i took a look at the comments. there were more than 4,000 comments. here was the number one comment the a "the wall street journal" on this issue when i read in. if only the nation's premier law enforcement entities hadn't knowing lily tried to frame tru for colluding with russia, suppressing the news of the laptop and had key intel officials lie and call it disinformation, hadn't suppressed witnesses to the fbi who reported potential crimes of biden's influence pedaling instead of investigating them, need i go on, then perhaps the country would be taking these indictments against trump seriously, too late for that now. the point being that the cumulative impact of all of this is causing people to say, it's too much. it's plolitical. you get the final word. >> that's exactly the kind of responses that the group got when they tested these ads. it's remarkable. these legal indictments have been only nated through the primary. so for trump's opponents, how to take him down, how to stop him from winning the nomination is just really hard. >> great reporting thank you so much for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> what are your thoughts? hit me up on social media. katherine, what do we have? from the world of x, the primary nomination voters, are worlds apart from independents and disaffected republicans. ads attacking trump's legal problems will work in the general election, especially if a conviction looms at the time. i don't think any of us know. the one thing that seems pretty certain is that barring the unforeseen, a significant change, less than 70 days out from iowa, he seems to have a strangle hold on the primary process. so you say, what could change this narrative? the trials that may occur in the spring. and now you see how an effort that highlights the idea of conviction, that helps him too. we don't know. we don't know. never seen anything like this before. totally unpredictable. speaking of which, up ahead, america knows sheryl hines from "curb your enthusiasm." in real life, she's the wife of rfk jr. he decided to run as an independent is performing better than expected in the polls. and positioning himself as a threat to both parties. the campaign says they have a plan to get ballot access in all 50 states. so what would sheryl hines be like if she were the nation's first lady. she's here to discuss. after this cartoon of "the washington post" about hamas using civilians as human shields caused a backlash, the post took the unusual step of deleting it and apologizing for it. the cartoonist behind that illustration is here. and by the way, i want to know what you think. go to smerconish.com and tell me should the "washington post" have removed the cartoon? howdy visive has the war become? it caused a major american newspaper to delete antorial cartoon it published about the conflict. we have seen the battles on college campuses and city council meetings and on the house floor, where this week the only palestinian member of congress was censured over her rhetoric over the war. then on wednesday the "washington post" took the unusual step of pulling an editorial cartoon about the conflict and opening up a page for reader comments. the cartoon is by michael ramirez, who will join me in a moment. it depicts a man labeled hamas who was saying, how dare israel attack civilians, while he has tied to his body two infants, two children and a woman. the post opinion ed toir wrote in a note to readers that the image was seen by many as racist. this was not my intent. i saw the drawing as a caricature of a specific individual that hamas spokesperson who celebrated the attacks on unarmed civilians in israel. however, the reaction to the image convinced me i missed something are profound and dwisive and i regret that. our section is aimed at finding commonalities. even in the darkest times. the cartoon was take down at "the washington post." it's still posted on the website of the las vegas review journal. joining me now is cartoonist michael ramirez. he's the author of the books "give me liberty or give me obama care." thanks for being here. tell me what you're depicting. is this the hamas spokesman? >> it's a caricature of one who hailed the slaughter of innocent men and children. and then threatened to repeat it over and over. so the cartoon is about hamas. not palestine in general. the civilians in gaza are victims as the israelis were buzz of hamas. >> when you say it's not about palestinians in general, put that up for one more second so people can see it. when you use the palestinian flag, are you not conflating all palestinians with hamas. in the photograph that's hanging on the wall, i think what i see is the dome of the rock, similarly, are you conflating all of islam with hamas? >> that's the sheik who was the founder of hamas. you can't see it because it's been cut away. >> is that the dome of the rock behind the sheik? or am i reading something into it that you didn't intend? >> no, if you look at the review journal, by the way, let me clairify a couple things. i'm the cartoonist for the journal. and i have this extraordinary collaboration with the "washington post." i gave two cartoons a week. tuesdays and saturdays. and they run simultaneously in the review journal and the wash"washington post." the review journal has a w horizontal format. that was edited out. these obscure images in the background only lend to the point of the cartoon and are not the point of the cartoon. the point of the cartoon is in its specificity is on the interview that came out on television here nationally at the psalm time this cartoon was conceived. it's directed specifically at that individual. if you look, i isn't you a bunch of caricatures. it's a pretty spot on caricature. >> what i want to put on the screen is to show because much has been said about your style of drawing. and i found this interest ing. s here's a composite of your work. that's the spokesperson to whom you were referring. i want to put on the screen, i don't know if you can see this, but i'm showing lots of your work. i'm showing john fetterman and donald trump, i'm showing elizabeth warren because it seems like you draw a lot of faces in the same characteristic, in the same manner. >> if you look at the background characters, the generic characters in my cartoons, they all have long noses and beady e eyes. because i'm drawing my face when i shave every morning. these are cartoons. it's sad that these images can tell a people to run for their safe rooms clutching their participation trophies. >> i was surprised about something. the editorial page comment that i posted from the editorial page editor, he spoke of finding commonalities as being one of the objectives. i'm a huge fan of editorial cartoonists. three of them draw for my daily newsletter because i love this sort of thing. i have never believed that finding commonalities was the purpose of your work. i'm curious to know your yes reaction to that. >> i want to defend davidshiply. he's done a great job a "the washington post." he's brought a series of voices that they didn't have before to broaden their political perspective. i'm a big fan of david's while we disagree on this issue, and i'm sad they did that, think it was under pressure from a newsroom. it's sad that newsrooms across the political papers they think of these images as weapons they weaponize this. and they try to force the paper itself to follow whatever subjective criteria they have for the skyline. it's unfortunate. >> i want you spoened to to some of the criticism. katherine, the put up the criticism from susan. there we go. this is one of the comments that came in. the writer was a research associate the at the center for culture and society and religion at princeton. she says mr. ramirez's cartoon depicted a hamas representative tying women and children to himself to use as shields and blaming israel for their deaths. though no one disputes that hamas hides in civilian areas to evade the israeli army. this is the key part now, this cartoon amounted to an attempt at excusing israeli war crimes. your reaction to that is what? >> that's just ridiculous. the cartoon was specific. it did not justify anything israel did. to point out hypocrisy, there's plenty of evidence that shows hamas does this. not only do they use people as human shields, they operate in densely populated areas. so there's no question to debate the point of the cartoon so they use the race card a way to eliminate a political opinion they don't agree with. >> i always thought they were to spark civil conversation and discourse, not necessarily to bring out our commonalities. if i'm right, we just achieved that. thank you for being here. you have inspired today's poll question. it will be interesting to see how this turns out. >> thank you for having me on. >> there it is. go to smerconish.com now. you have heard the krit kism and the explanation. should t"the washington post" have removed that cartoon? social media reaction from the world of youtube, i think. what do we have? editorial cartoons are meant to show a viewpoint and make you think. i agree with you. obviously, within bounds, not to promulgate hate speech. the way, this was interpreted as conflating so much of palestinians and islam general ly with hamas. people didn't like that. there was an editorial cartoon for which the inquirer and the cartoonist apologized. do we have that one? it got yanked from the inquirer. hang on. we'll show it to you. look at this. is that appropriate? is that within bounds? the cartoonist and the newspaper apologized in that case. up ahead, will rfk jr. shake up our two-party political system? emmy nominated actress cheryl hines is here to discuss how her husband has a slight edge against biden and trump among millennial voters. don't forget to sign up for the daily newsletter. jack oman, check out what he drew for my newsletter this week. love that. i'm trying to curb my enthusiasm for this next segment. that's because i'm about to speak to cheryl hines or mrs. rfk jr. she's here because her husband could be poised to turn our two-party political system is on its head. i have noted already tonight how former president trump is beating president biden in 5 out of 6 battle the ground states in a hypothetical matchup for the presidential race. that's the college poll. only 2% of registered voters in that poll said they would support another ill defined candidate. but if rfk jr.'s name is added to that ballot, as a third option, the nearly a quarter of voters said they would choose him over trump or biden. polling between 22 and 26% of support among swing state voters in pennsylvania, wisconsin, michigan, nevada, arizona and georgia. among millennial voters, he's beating biden and trump. and among independents in those battleground states, rfk showing a comfortable lead with 39% to biden's 28% and trump's 25%. so rfk jr.'s campaign if they are able to mobilize, we might see a repeat of the '68 presidential race than the 2020 race. i refer to george wallace beat the nominee in five states. but ballot access is a major hurdle for independent candidates, not to mention motivating enough voters to turn out. larry david himself once covered this subject on "curb." >> hey. can ask you a personal question? >> what? >> who are you voting for? >> snider. >> you're voting for snider? >> i have a proposition for you. they cancel each other out. let's gt out of here. >> i like it. >> beautiful. let's go. >> cheryl hines joins me now, she's an actress, director, producer, comedian, businesswoman and wife of presidential candidate robert f kennedy jr. great to have you here. you have tons on your own plate. how active a role are you playing in this campaign? >> i would say pretty active. i am definitely, bobby and i spend a lot of time talking about issues and what people need and how we are hearing from them and going around the country at theened of the day. we say what i'm hearing is people are having a hard time paying their bills. they fe