>> ERIC: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17TH.

IT'S A DATE MANY POLITICAL OBSERVERS HAD CIRCLED ON THEIR CALENDAR.

WOULD CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY THE DEEPLY DIVIDED REPUBLICAN-LED HOUSE, MANAGE TO PASS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION OR WOULD THREAT OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN BECOME REALITY?

SPECULATION ENDED QUITE EARLY IN THE WEEK AS HOUSE DEMOCRATS ONCE AGAIN HELPED PASS A BILL TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT RUNNING.

AFTER PASSING THE SENATE, PRESIDENT BIDEN SIGNED THE SPENDING BILL YESTERDAY.

KATHRYN PEARSON IS A POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR FROM THE U OF M, SPECIALIZES IN CONGRESS.

THAT POOR CAN THAT CONGRESS IS KICKING DOWN THE ROAD HAS GOT A LOT OF DENTS IN IT.

IS THIS JUST TEMPORARY OR WHAT GOES -- WHAT HAPPENS GOING FORWARD?

>> WELL, THIS IS TEMPORARY.

THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE FOUR OF THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS BILLS EXPIRE ON JANUARY 19th, AND THE REMAINING EIGHT EXPIRE ON FEBRUARY 2nd.

SO THAT'S NOT A LOT OF TIME.

SO WE ONCE AGAIN HAVE KICKED THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

THE HOPE IS THAT CONGRESS WILL PASS THESE AS INDIVIDUAL APPROPRIATIONS ILLS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, BUT GIVEN THE POLITICAL DYNAMICS THAT WE'RE OBSERVING, THAT SEEMS TO BE -- THAT WOULD BE VERY CHALLENGING FOR HOUSE REPUBLICANS AND SENATE DEMOCRATS O AGREE ON THESE INDIVIDUAL BILLS.

IT DID PASS WITH AN OVERWHELMING 87-11 IN THE SENATE AND THEN WITH BIG MAJORITIES IN THE HOUSE AS WELL, BUT ONLY 57% OF REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION.

IT DID NOT CUT SPENDING.

IT WAS THE AGREEMENT LAID OUT THIS SUMMER.

AND IT DID NOT INCLUDE POLICY PROVISIONS.

AND, SO, THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME BILL THAT LOST -- THAT KEVIN McCARTHY LOST HIS SPEAKERSHIP OVER, BUT JOHNSON, OF COURSE, IS GIVING A LITTLE BIT OF BREATHING ROOM.

TELLINGLY, REPUBLICANS COULDN'T PASS A RULE.

SO THIS IS VERY INSIDE BASEBALL, BUT THEY HAD TO USE A PROCEDURE CALLED SUSPENSION OF THE RULES, WHICH REQUIRES 2/3 OF THE HOUSE TO AGREE, WHICH IS NORMALLY RESERVED FOR UNCONTROVERSIAL BILLS, AND THIS BILL, OF COURSE, WAS QUITE CONTROVERSIAL AMONG REPUBLICANS.

>> Cathy: WHAT A MESS.

>> IT'S A MESS.

>> Cathy: LET'S TALK ABOUT REPRESENTATIVE SANTOS IS FACING EXPULSION.

AND HOW -- WHAT'S -- I MEAN, HOW MANY TIMES HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED?

>> TWICE BEFORE.

>> Cathy: OKAY.

>> AND JIM TRAFICANT IN THE EARLY 2000s, A DEMOCRAT, HE, AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF BRIBERY, HE WAS EXPELLED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SO, SANTOS, OF COURSE, HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED, BUT THE ETHICS REPORT WAS QUITE DAMNING, IN TERMS OF ALL OF THE WAYS IN WHICH W -- -- IN WHICH HE USED CAMPAIGN FUNDS PERSONALLY AND IT HAD A VERY LONG LIST OF ALLEGATIONS.

SO IT IS LOOKING LIKELY, NOW THAT THE REPUBLICAN CHAIR OF THE ETHICS COMMITTEE WANTS TO BRING THIS TO THE HOUSE FLOOR THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN.

EVEN THOUGH HE HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED AS OF NOW.

>> Eric: YOU WORKED ON CAPITOL HILL, YOU STUDIED CONGRESS CLOSELY.

WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE ELBOWING OF THE MEMBER BY KEVIN McCARTHY AND THE THREAT OF A FISTFIGHT?

WHAT'S GOING ON?

>> WELL, IT'S NOT NEW.

BUT IT IS STILL, NONETHELESS, TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE AND UNUSUAL.

I MEAN, THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

IT HAPPENED IN THE 1990s WHEN TENSIONS WERE HIGH.

BUT I THINK IT REALLY ILLUSTRATES HOW HIGH TENSIONS ARE AMONG REPUBLICANS.

I MEAN, THIS WAS TIM BURCHET, ELBOWED BY FORMER SPEAKER McCARTHY.

>> Eric: TWO REPUBLICANS.

>> RIGHT.

AND BURCHET WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST McCARTHY, THE GROUP OF EIGHT, THAT'S KEY IN UNDERSTANDING HIS.

BUT IT REALLY UNDERSCORES THE TENSION, THE ANIMOSITY, AND SORT OF THE DYSFUNCTION.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE SENATE HEARING WHERE SENATOR SANDERS HAD TO STEP INTO A HEARING AND SAY, YOU KNOW, LET'S ACT LIKE SENATORS.

>> Cathy: YEAH, THIS LACK OF DECORUM, THOUGH, ISN'T THAT JUST AMAZING?

>> IT'S JUST SO DISAPPOINTING, AND UNPROFESSIONAL.

BUT THIS HAS BEEN THE LEAST PRODUCTIVE CONGRESS WE'VE HAD IN A VERY LONG TIME.

>> ric: LOOKING AHEAD TO THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF '24.

IS THERE ANY CHANCE FOR BROKERED CONVENTIONS WHERE TRUMP AND BIDEN MAY BE IN SUCH STRAITS THAT THEY HAVE TO TURN TO THE CONVENTION AND ACTUALLY NOMINATE OTHER PEOPLE?

>> WELL, GIVEN THAT NOW THE DELEGATES ARE CHOSEN IN PRIMARIES AND CAUCUSES ALONG THE WAY, AND, SO, THERE ARE NO SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING IN BEFORE THE CONVENTIONS SINCE THE 1968 REFORMS, THAT SEEMS UNLIKELY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, NEVER SAY NEVER.

CERTAINLY IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL TO HAVE A REMATCH, BUT WITH TRUMP'S BIG LEAD THUS FAR IN THE NOMINATING CONTEST POLLING, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S A POSSIBILITY, BUT, REALLY, YOU KNOW, NYTHING COULD HAPPEN.

>> Eric: DOES CONGRESSMAN PHILLIPS HAVE ANY TRACTION AGAINST BIDEN AND WILL BIDEN MOUNT ANY KIND OF WRITE-IN IN NEW HAMPSHIRE OR LEAVE IT ALONE?

>> I THINK IT'S LIKELY THEY WILL WRITE IN BIDEN, THE EXTENT TO WHICH THAT'S A BIG CAMPAIGN IS NOT YET CLEAR BECAUSE, OF COURSE, BIDEN IS NOT ACTUALLY ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE NEW HAMPSHIRE IS VIOLATING DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULES BY GOING FIRST.

AS STATE LAW STIPULATES SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING THERE.

I THINK PHILLIPS IS PICKING UP A LITTLE BIT OF TRACTION, BUT, REALLY AMONG PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR EARN ACTIVE TO -- ALTERNATIVE TO BIDE YEP, NOT SO MUCH FOR PHILLIPS.

>> Cathy: JILL STEIN ENTERED THE RACE FOR THE GREEN PARTY.

WHAT DOES HISTORY TELL US ABOUT THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATES IN TERMS OF JUST WHO THEY HURT?

>> RIGHT.

WELL, I THINK IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHO THE CANDIDATE IS.

BUT, OF COURSE, JILL STEIN IN 2016 HURT CLINTON IN MICHIGAN.

WITH SUCH THAT 10,000-VOTE NARROW MARGIN IN MICHIGAN IN 2016.

NOW, WOULD THOSE VOTERS HAVE STAYED HOME, WOULD THEY HAVE VOTED FOR CLINTON?

IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO KNOW EVEN WITH GOOD EXIT POLLS, BUT IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR TRUMP.

BUT WOULD THAT HAVE MADE THE DIFFERENCE IN MICHIGAN?

UNCLEAR.

>> Eric: EALLY APPRECIATE YOUR EXPERTISE TONIGHT, AS USUAL, THANKS FOR COMING OVER.

>> MY PLEASURE.

>> Eric: YOU BET.

>>