Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders speaks during a rally in Dearborn, Michigan, March 7.; Credit: GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images

The industrial midwest often proves to be a major fall battleground in the race for the White House, and Senator Bernie Sanders scored himself a big victory in Michigan’s primary on Tuesday, securing 50% of the vote in a state many believed would go to Hillary Clinton.

Though the former Secretary of State shored up her Southern stronghold with a win in Mississippi, the Michigan win helps Sanders close the delegate gap, even if only a little.But what will it take for the charismatic Vermonter to surpass Hillary Clinton in the remaining primaries?

Elsewhere, Donald Trump padded his lead in the race for the Republican nomination with victories in Michigan, Hawaii, and Mississippi, though Texas Senator Ted Cruz did sneak away with a win in Idaho.

Today on AirTalk, we’ll discuss the implications for both parties from yesterday’s primaries and what Bernie Sanders’ path to the Democratic nomination is after winning Michigan.

Guests:

Matt Rodriguez, Democratic strategist, founder and CEO of Rodriguez Strategies, and a former senior Obama advisor in 2008; he tweets @RodStrategies

John Nichols, national affairs correspondent for The Nation; he tweets @NicholsUprising

Mark Barabak, national political writer for the Los Angeles times; he tweets @markzbarabak

File: A Los Angeles Police Department officer on a bicycle patrols the parking lot of Dodger Stadium prior to the home opener against the Pittsburgh Pirates.; Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

About a year-and-a-half ago, California voters passed Proposition 47. It reduced to misdemeanors most drug possessions and property crimes of $950 or less. It allowed those in prison who had served at least misdemeanor time to petition for re-sentencing and release and has so far reduced California’s prison population by 4,700 people.

That move followed state realignment, which transferred thousands of offenders from state prisons to local jails and released many others. The state made the move to address overcrowding, which brought on federal sanctions.

During the campaign, both the Legislative Analyst’s Office and California’s Department of Finance estimated that the savings from Prop 47 would near $100 million each year — but Gov. Brown’s 2016-17 budget estimated Prop 47 savings at only $29.3 million. Today, city leaders from around the state are in Sacramento to ask where those proposed savings have gone.

The question remains: how are both dramatic changes in criminal justice playing out? How much money is the state really saving by housing fewer convicts? Are more addicts who would've done time for property crimes or dealing undergoing drug treatment? Have fewer people in prison resulted in higher crime?

Guests:

Los Angeles City Councilman Marqueece Harris-Dawson, representing District 8 in South L.A.; he’s testifying in Sacramento Wednesday about Prop 47 savings

Amy Jarvis, assistant program budget manager with California’s Department of Finance

Charis Kubrin, professor of criminology at UC-Irvine; she edited the findings of a recent study on realignment in the Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science

Bill Lansdowne, former chief of the San Diego Police Department, retired in 2014. He’s also been a police chief in San Jose and Richmond. Along with San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, Lansdowne was one of Prop 47’s official proponents

Marc Debbaudt, president, Association for Deputy District Attorneys (of L.A. County)

A "For Sale" sign is posted in front of a house in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

High housing costs may be causing trouble for the Southern California housing market.

Despite the fact that the state has some of the highest wages and job growth, many potential buyers are choosing to go out-of-state and foreign buyers are even pulling back.

A stronger U.S. dollar could be to blame for the easing of many foreign buyers, including the Chinese, which surpassed Canadians as top foreign buyers last year. This may have to do less with the cost of housing and more with the U.S.’s image of political and economic security.

What do you think of the changing housing market? Do rising costs make you consider moving out of state?

Guests:

Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the National Association of Realtors, which came out with a update this week on foreign homebuyers in the U.S

Raphael Bostic, Judith and John Bedrosian Chair in Governance and the Public Enterprise at USC’s Price School of Public Policy

Daren Blomquist, Senior Vice President at RealtyTrac, a real estate information company based in Irvine

Assemblymember Kansen Chu, D-San Jose, has initiated a bill allowing us to stay in Standard Time year-round.
; Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

For Californians who curse the practice of “Springing Forward” as they schlep to their car an hour earlier each year, good news may be on its way.

Assemblymember Kansen Chu, D-San Jose, has initiated a bill allowing us to stay in Standard Time year-round.

Originally devised by Benjamin Franklin, Daylight Saving Time was created to save expensive candle wax. It was adopted in California in 1949, offering benefits which included car accident prevention and increased worker safety. But DST may produce the exact opposite effects and, like Chu, many Californians think the practice is antiquated.

But DST has long been touted as a way to save energy. It’s also known to benefit retailers, leaving more daylight for people to shop. And, of course, there are countless advantages to longer summer days, such as more outside playtime for kids and the benefit of not having to leave work in the dark.

What do you think of the bill to abolish DST? Do you look forward to longer summer days or would you rather keep the same time year-round?

Guest:

Kansen Chu, Democratic Assembly member representing California’s 25th Assembly District, which includes San Jose and its surrounding areas. He initiated the Daylight Saving Time bill, AB 2496.

David Prerau, Author of "Seize the Daylight: The Curious and Contentious Story of Daylight Savings Time" (Basic Books, 2006)

Terry Bollea, aka Hulk Hogan, testifies in court during his trial against Gawker Media at the Pinellas County Courthouse on March 8, 2016 in St Petersburg, Florida.; Credit: Pool/Getty Images

Hulk Hogan has wrestled some big, strong men in his life, from ‘Macho Man’ Randy Savage to the 7’4”, 520 lb. Andre the Giant, who Hogan famously body slammed at Wrestlemania III in one of pro wrestling’s most iconic moments.

To beat his latest opponent, however, Hogan’s going to need much more than brute strength.

Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, is suing Gawker Media for $100 million dollars for invasion of privacy after Gawker posted a sex tape in 2012 featuring Hogan and woman who would eventually be identified as Heather Clem, the wife of radio personality and Hogan’s then-best friend Bubba the Love Sponge Clem. Gawker, a blog focusing on news and media gossip in Manhattan, also owns sites like the sports blog Deadspin the feminist site Jezebel and the tech blog Gizmodo. Its owners have said that the company doesn’t have $100 million to pay damages if it were ruled against and says it would likely be forced to shut down if a jury were to find in Hulk’s favor.

At the center of the case are issues concerning privacy, free speech, and newsworthiness. Hogan says he didn’t know he was being filmed during the sex act, and that Gawker violated his right to privacy by posting a clip from it online. He also argued that Terry Bollea, the private citizen, is owed a level of privacy that Hulk Hogan, his public persona, is not. Gawker says that because Hogan has publicly discussed his sex life on platforms like The Howard Stern Show, he has made it newsworthy and therefore they had a right to publish the tape. Hogan had also publicly denied the tape’s existence in the past, and Gawker says that forced its hand into publishing it.

Who do you think has the better legal argument? Can a celebrity like Hogan who has a public persona expect a different level of privacy when he/she is not in character?

Guests:

Mary Anne Franks, professor of law at the University of Miami (FL)

Jeff John Roberts, law and policy reporter at Fortune Magazine and an attorney licensed in New York State and Ontario, Canada; his latest piece is “Gawker is right, Hulk Hogan is wrong”

(L-R) Tom Tykwer, Lana Wachowski and Andy Wachowski attend the 'Cloud Atlas' Germany Premiere at CineStar on November 5, 2012 in Berlin, Germany.; Credit: Andreas Rentz/Getty Images

Filmmaker Lilly Wachowski, best known for co-directing “The Matrix” trilogy, announced this week that she is a transgender woman.

Lilly, formerly known as Andy, made the announcement four years after her sibling Larry Wachowski announced he was transitioning to become Lana.

Lilly chose to come out after she claims she was threatened by a Daily Mail reporter who knocked on her door and asked to do an exclusive interview about her transition. Arguably the most high-profile person to come out at transgender since Caitlyn Jenner, Lilly’s announcement raises questions about the role of the public and media in outing an individual, especially one who has not led as public a life as someone like Jenner.

The news also raises questions about how rare it is for two siblings to be transgender and what the latest science reveals about the possible biological underpinnings of being transgender.

Guests:

Rachel Levin, PhD associate professor of Biology and Chair of Neuroscience at Pomona College; she’s also a contributor to the academic volume Trans Bodies, Trans Selves

Georg Kranz, MSc, PhD at the Medical University of Vienna; he worked on a 2014 study published in The Journal of Neuroscience that found that individuals who identified as transsexuals — those who wanted sex reassignment — had structural differences in their brains that were between their desired gender and their genetic sex

Thomas Page McBee, advocate on transgender issues around media visibility and author of "Man Alive: A True Story of Violence, Forgiveness, and Becoming a Man." He’s writes frequently for Playboy magazine and is currently the Director of Growth at the news site Quartz; he tweets from @ThomasPageMcBee

A new UCLA study finds the majority of California adults either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic.; Credit: ELMER MARTINEZ/AFP/Getty Images

A new UCLA study finds the majority of California adults either have diabetes or are pre-diabetic. Just as concerning is the finding that a third of young adults are pre-diabetic.

The number with full-blown diabetes has gone up more than a third in just the past decade. The large numbers with pre-diabetes is a big concern, as 70 percent of them are expected to get diabetes in their lifetimes.  

The local figures are far higher than national rates and much of the difference is attributed to California’s large percentage of Latinos.  In previous years, experts estimated that 33 percent of Californians were pre-diabetic, but the recent study has determined that the estimate is much closer to 46 percent.

The most alarming part is that 9 percent of Californians have already been diagnosed with diabetes, bringing the total of diabetics and pre-diabetics in the state to 55 percent. It is nearly impossible to know whether you are pre-diabetic because there are virtually no symptoms, but some professionals like Harold Goldstein, head of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, blame sedentary lifestyles and unhealthy eating habits for the rise in pre-diabetes.

Is exercise and a healthy diet the only way to prevent the disease? Will massive Medi-Cal expansion help? What are some of the most effective ways to reverse diabetes?

Interview Highlights

Could [these new findings] be the result of better diagnosis?

There could be some changes due to better diagnosis, but I don’t think that fully explains the increases either.

Do you see regional differences within the state, and if so, what seem to be co-factors with the higher rates of diabetes or pre-diabetes?

Yeah, we do see considerable variation from county to county and it does seem to be related to demographic factors like age and race, but also to obesity rates.

Do you think the massive Medi-Cal expansion will have a positive effect on these numbers going forward?

That would be our hope. It would be great to have more people have access to effective diabetes prevention programs among those who are at risk of developing diabetes.

Do people who are pre-diabetic typically take medication?

There is medication that’s been shown to be effective in preventing the progression from pre-diabetes to diabetes, but it’s actually not as effective as the lifestyle modifications.

You mentioned that you see demographic tracking based on the counties with the higher rates. Is this largely income driven and what are we seeing for higher income Californians? Are their rates of diabetes changing at all?

We’re not able to look in these pre-diabetes rates at trends over time because we don’t have previous numbers by county, or broken out by demographics. But we do know that diabetes rates are considerably higher among lower income Californians; however, over time, they’ve been going up among all income groups.

What’s some of the latest science on the types of diets that are most effective? Are carbohydrates now considered far more significant for the person with diabetes?

In general, it is recommended to limit consumption of simple carbohydrates, complex carbohydrates have other benefits. In particular, consumption of sugar is problematic and there’s evidence showing unique pathways where sugar increases your risk for diabetes.

Note: This comments have been edited for clarity.

This story has been updated.

If listeners are interested in hearing Sue speak more about the study, they can tune in for the free noon webinar! Details here.

UCLA Prediabetes Brief

Guest:

Susan Babey, PhD, lead researcher on the paper and co-director of the Chronic Disease Program at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney concedes defeat to US President Barack Obama November 7, 2012 in Boston, Massachusetts.; Credit: EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images

This highly competitive race to choose a presidential nominee in the Republican and Democratic parties should be spurring furious and exhaustive opposition research - skeletons in closets, flip-flops, and damning video and audio recordings.

However, opposition research is not as simple as finding a yellowed newspaper clipping. Strategists have to research how the evidence will play in the minds of voters and seed it at just the right time.

A prime example came in 2012 when a pro-President Obama group created an emotional ad targeting Mitt Romney’s claims of being good for business. It featured a blue-collar worker laid off after his company was acquired by Bain Capital, co-founded by Romney. How effective or ineffective have the campaigns been at conducting and using opposition research?

Guests:

Brett Di Resta, Member of Democracy Partners - a strategic consulting firm; adjunct professor of opposition research at George Washington University

Sam Stein, Senior Editor of Politics, Huffington Post

Lisa Camooso Miller, Republican strategist and partner at Blueprint Communications, public affairs firm based in D.C.  

Kurdish Peshmerga forces detain suspected members of ISIL, or Daesh in Arabic, who mixed with a group of villagers fleeing the frontline to a Kurdish-controled area on November 16, 2015 to Sinjar, Iraq.; Credit: John Moore/Getty Images

British broadcaster Sky News has obtained over thousands of ISIS documents purportedly leaked by a disillusioned Free Syrian Army fighter.

They questionnaires containing 23 questions filled out by 22,000 ISIS recruits from around the world and contain information like names, addresses, and blood types. Four names are allegedly from people residing in the U.S. German intelligence has also obtained the same trove, and is in the process of determining its authenticity.

Guest:

Colin P. Clarke, Associate Political Scientist at the Rand Corporation whose research focuses on counterinsurgency and counterintelligence

Dr. Niraj Desai (L) sews in a kidney to a recipient patient during a kidney transplant at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.; Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

For years, candidates for kidney transplants have had to bide their time on the waiting list until someone who’s a match donates a kidney.

However, new research out this week sheds light on what many experts are calling a groundbreaking procedure that could allow eligible candidates to receive a kidney from a donor who isn’t compatible.

The study from the New England Journal of Medicine details a procedure called “desensitization,” which basically alters a patient’s immune system so that it will accept a kidney from a donor who isn’t a match.

For many people, getting a kidney from an incompatible donor isn’t an option because they have antibodies that will attack a transplanted organ. In the process of desensitization, doctors filter out antibodies from the patient’s blood and introduce different antibodies for protection while the immune system regenerates those antibodies. For some reason that is still unknown, the regenerated antibodies aren’t as likely to attack the transplant organ

For many transplant candidates, the procedure could mean the difference between getting a kidney and having to spend the rest of their lives on dialysis, which can cost $70,000 a year for life. The desensitization procedure costs $30,000 and a transplant around $100,000, so many experts say it’s cheaper in the long run.

Guests:

Dr. Dorry Segev, abdominal transplant surgeon and associate professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine; he’s the lead author of the study “Survival Benefit with Kidney Transplants from HLA-Incompatible Live Donors”

Dr. Krista Lentine, transplant nephrologist, medical director of living donor evaluation, and professor of medicine at St. Louis University

A boy waits for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to speak at a rally February 19, 2016 in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
; Credit: Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty Images

Think back to your first political memory...what is it?

Maybe you overheard your parents discussing candidates at dinner or a relative screaming incredulously at the TV screen during a presidential debate. For many, political ideologies are shaped in large part from what we learn as kids from parents and other relatives.

Whether we carry these ideologies or beliefs with us throughout adolescence and into adulthood varies from person to person, but there’s no question that family plays an important role during a child’s formative years in terms of planting the seeds of political ideologies.

During an election season full of intense rhetoric and hyper-partisanship, there are no doubt plenty of parents whose kids are asking pointed questions about candidates and policies as they hear family members at home or friends at school talking about it.

But what’s the best way to approach talking to your kids about elections? How different is it from the way your parents talked to you about politics and elections? Do you impart your own values on your children in the hopes they’ll take root, or do you let your kids find their own way to conclusions? How do you handle it if your kids’ political values don’t match your own?

​Guest:

Lynn Vavreck, professor of political science at UCLA​

“The King and Queen of Malibu: The True Story of the Battle for Paradise” by David K. Randall (W.W. Norton, 2016); Credit: W.W. Norton

Malibu invites images of mansions perched atop seaside cliffs, shaggy surfer dudes and movie stars cruising PCH. But its origins are far less glitzy.

Frederick Hastings Rindge was the sickly son of a Boston scion. He wanted to be a self-made man and after attending Harvard he headed out to a place where sunshine and opportunities were plentiful: Los Angeles. Rindge quickly proved himself a shrewd businessman and made a fortune in life insurance, oil and other ventures.

He eventually married Rhoda May Knight and the two moved to Malibu in 1892, where they had three children. The couple was known for their philanthropic endeavors, but they refused to allow a road to be built that would have allowed settlers to travel across the coast.

California native and senior reporter at Reuters David Randall sat down with Larry Mantle to reveal the story behind two of the Golden State's most iconic locales: the Malibu coast and the Pacific Coast Highway that traces it.

Interview highlights

Let’s set the stage for what Malibu looked like before the beaches were developed and how remote and inaccessible those mountains and shores were.

David Randall: It was almost like it was a kingdom apart from the rest of L.A., and to get there you actually had to time when you were going to go by the tides. If you didn’t go at the right time, you’d be stuck on the beach or the rocks, just kind of marooned there. So, where Malibu is now used to be the property of Frederick and May Rindge. Behind it is where the homesteaders lived. The homesteaders needed to get through what we know as Malibu today to be able to go down to Santa Monica to get supplies, medicine, or anything else they’d need. The Rindges wanted to close it. They wanted this to be their own paradise.

When Frederick died suddenly, his wife May inherits this big empire of over $500 million in today’s money. At a time she can’t vote, she’s the head of an empire that stretches from L.A. to San Francisco to Boston to South America. Everybody thinks,” OK, who’s going to take over all of this?” At his funeral, people were openly whispering about who was going to take over. She defies all of them and says she’s going to keep it all for herself. She essentially becomes the most hated woman in Los Angeles for the next 30 years of her life. Homesteaders literally come on horseback with rifles and try to kill her. The city kind of turns against her and she’s no longer welcome in elite society, and she just tries to keep Malibu as her private kingdom for the next 30 years against all comers and is willing to do whatever it takes.

Who were the homesteaders?

David Randall: After the Homestead Act was passed after the Civil War, people just came West. Here was free land for the taking, so they went for it. One of the most famous was Marion Decker. He’s the namesake of Decker Canyon Road, which is in Malibu now. It was almost like a game of musical chairs. There was all this free land for the taking. The frontier era in L.A. ended so much faster than anyone was expecting, so everything stuck in place. The homesteaders that were there, they can’t leave. They can no longer afford to go somewhere else. The Rindges don’t want to leave. They own all of Malibu. So there’s this fight. The homesteaders have to go through Malibu to get to the beach to get to Los Angeles. If you drive it now, it’s treacherous even now when there’s a nice road there, but think about doing it on a donkey or a horse. If you go on the beach, it’s maybe a full day trip. If you go the other way, through the mountains, it’s four or five days. If you’re a homesteader, you’re barely surviving. You need food for your kids, you need medicine, you need oil for your lamps. This woman is keeping you from happiness. You have a big incentive to kill her. So, the homesteaders would literally lie in wait for her.

Growing up here in Southern California and spending time in Malibu, I don’t recall seeing the Rindge name on anything around town.

David Randall: That’s what was so striking for me, too. I grew up in Riverside, and everyone knows the happy story of Malibu. You know, sunshine and movie stars and surfers. No one knows that all of Malibu as we think of it today really required this tragic fall of the Rindge family. So, when May spent 30 years trying to keep Malibu as her own private kingdom, it obviously didn’t work. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and was a landmark eminent domain decision over the Pacific Coast Highway’s construction. What was so interesting is that eminent domain is usually for something like a military base or something for obvious government use. This was the first time that the lawyers for the state of California basically argued that seeing beautiful places was also a public necessity. It was this progressive idea that if you’re in a beautiful place it makes you a better person. So, the irony of it was that the beauty of Malibu brought the Rindges to Malibu, and the beauty of it is also what made them lose it eventually.

So the Rindge name is really kind of lost to Malibu. Does Malibu have its own origin story?

David Randall: The modern idea is you think of it as a 1950s Gidget, surfers, all that stuff. That wiped away all of the Rindge history. It was kind of like this new era, the 50s, optimism. Let’s look forward and push away everything that came before. Hopefully, what people will see with this book, is that L.A. history from 1887 to 1941, which is when May dies, it went from frontier. When the Rindges got out here 20 years before then, L.A. had some of the highest murder rate in U.S. history. It was the worst of the Wild West. The railroads tamed that to a certain extent, but L.A. went from frontier to global metropolis with hardly anything in between. The tragic part of May Rindge, besides the fact that she was willing to exhaust an inexhaustible fortune to try to keep Malibu and everything as her private kingdom, is that she outlived her time in many ways. She reaches L.A. right when the railroads get here. By the time she dies, they’re already planning on building the 10 freeway not very far from her home.

Note: This interview has been edited for clarity.

This story has been updated.

​David Randall will be at the Payson Library at Pepperdine University for a book reading and signing today, Monday, March 14. The event starts at at 4:00pm. For more info, click here.

Guest:

David K. Randall, author of “The King and Queen of Malibu: The True Story of the Battle for Paradise” (W.W. Norton, 2016). He is a senior reporter at Reuters

A new study published in the journal Lancet finds that three types of laws governing gun ownership in America can reduce the number of firearm deaths in the country.
; Credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images

A new study published in the journal Lancet finds that three types of laws governing gun ownership in America can reduce the number of firearm deaths in the country.

Universal background checks for gun purchases, background checks on ammunition purchases, and firearm identification could lower firearm mortality by 90 percent, say the authors of “Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study.”

To arrive at their results, they looked at both prevention laws (like background checks) -- and permissive laws (like stand-your-ground laws) in the country in 2009 and the number of gun-related deaths in 2010.

They found that universal background checks led to a 39 percent reduction in death, while ammunition background checks were responsible for an 18 percent drop, and gun identification laws were associated with a 16 percent dial down.

Guests:

Bindu Kalesan, lead author of the study, “Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study.” She is an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University

John Lott, author, “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws” (University of Chicago Press, Third Edition, 2010) and President of The Crime Prevention Research Center that focuses on the study of gun laws and public safety

Parents talk with the teacher as they arrive with their child at the start of the new school year.; Credit: LIONEL BONAVENTURE/AFP/Getty Images

A new education bill passed by the Mississippi House would require that a section be added to every child’s report card in which teachers give parents A, B, C or D marks on their involvement in their children’s schooling.

Teachers would grade parents along several categories including responsiveness to teacher communication, preparedness for tests, attendance and homework.

Supporters of the Parental Involvement and Accountability Act argue it will improve students’ chances of doing well  in low performing public schools. Opponents of the bill, which  is now headed to the Mississippi state senate, argue that it is difficult to measure a parent’s impact on a child’s education given so many variables. Some children may do well despite a difficult home life and some parents are just stretched for time trying to provide for their children in other ways.  

If the bill becomes law, it would go into effect at the beginning of the next school year. 

Call us at 866-593-5722 to share your comments

Protesters of Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump demonstrate prior to a Trump Rally at the Peabody Opera House on March 11, 2016 in St. Louis, Missouri. ; Credit: MICHAEL B. THOMAS/AFP/Getty Images

Security concerns at a Donald Trump rally in Chicago on Friday forced the campaign to cancel the event, which sparked conflict between Trump supporters and protesters that spilled out into the city streets, and even got violent at times. It’s just the latest in a spate of instances at Trump rallies.

Last week in North Carolina, a Trump supporter cold-cocked a protester in the face who was being escorted out of the event. Trump has denied responsibility for the violence, saying he should be getting credit for how he handles the disruptions during his events. Critics argue that it’s Trump himself who has created the violence with his rhetoric. How unusual is it for us to see violence centered around a single candidate like this? Are there other examples in history?

Elsewhere in the world of politics, five states hold primaries for both parties on Tuesday. Florida and Ohio may be the two biggest prizes of the day, especially for Republicans hoping to throw a wrench in the cogs of Donald Trump’s campaign. Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Ohio Governor John Kasich must win in their home states, which are both winner-take-all, or they’ll be virtually out of the race from a numbers standpoint.

Guests:

Julian Zelizer, Professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and a fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is, “The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society.” (Penguin Press, 2015)

Ana Kasparian, co-host and producer of The Young Turks and a part-time professor of journalism at California State University-Northridge; she tweets @AnaKasparian

Shermichael Singleton, Republican political consultant and contributor to The Hill; he has also worked on presidential campaigns for Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and most recently Dr. Ben Carson; he tweets @Shermichael_

A protester is arrested by Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers after he attempted to join a group of Occupy LA demonstrators.; Credit: Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

Two Los Angeles police commissioners are urging the LAPD to make changes on rules governing the use of deadly force at the department.

The recommendations were laid out in a report released Friday and call specifically for language on de-escalation to be added. The change would require the department to weigh whether an officer’s use of deadly force is justified, holding the organization further accountable for the actions of its officers.

The Police Protective League, the union representing LAPD officers, has come out criticizing the proposal.

The full Police Commission will discuss the report at their weekly meeting on Tuesday.

TEN-YEAR OVERVIEW OF CATEGORICAL USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATIONS, POLICY, AND TRAINING

Guests:

Michael Gennaco, principal at the OIR Group that provides consulting services to communities and law enforcement agencies. He is the former chief attorney of the Office of Independent Review for LA County, who provided oversight of the LA County Sheriff’s Department

Craig Lally, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the labor union for LAPD officers

Between 1999 and 2014, the CDC estimates that over 165 thousand people died from overdoses related to opioid-based medication such as OxyContin, Percocet, Hydrocodone, and Vicodin.; Credit: Darren McCollester/Getty Images

Today the CDC released 12 long-awaited recommendations for prescribing, monitoring and addressing the harms of opioid medication for use in treating chronic pain.

Between 1999 and 2014, the CDC estimates that over 165 thousand people died from overdoses related to opioid-based medication such as OxyContin, Percocet, Hydrocodone, and Vicodin.

Emphasizing patient safety, the agency recommends administering the lowest possible dosage of opioids only if a doctor finds that the benefits outweigh the risks of the highly addictive medications. Primary care doctors must also monitor patient usage more closely by conducting evaluations at least every 3 months. If a patient develops use disorder, doctors should offer treatment for patients including medication-assisted treatment. 

These new recommendations, which are voluntary, come after Massachusetts also passed into law a landmark bill that limits the amount of pain pills prescribed to patients after surgery or injury to a seven day supply.

Supporters of tougher limitations on painkiller prescriptions argue that supply restrictions are needed to stop this unique public health crisis. Opponents argue that the measures places an undue burden on patients who really need the pain relief.

Guests:

Andrew Kolodny, M.D., Chief Medical Officer of Phoenix House, a nonprofit addiction treatment organization and Executive Director of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP)

Lynn Webster, M.D., Former President of the American Academy of Pain Medicine and  author of the book “The Painful Truth: What Chronic Pain is Really Like and Why It Matters to Each of Us”

Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) meets with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu (R) and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (L). Putin ordered the defence ministry to begin the withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria.; Credit: MIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/AFP/Getty Images

As the most promising talks for peace in Syria kicked off yesterday in Geneva, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria and a cessation of five-plus months of daily airstrikes that helped the Syrian military regain ground.

In a televised meeting with Russia's foreign and defense ministries, Putin said the recent military actions helped create conditions for peace talks. Syrian state TV quoted President Bashar Assad as saying the collaboration between Russian and Syrian forces has secured "victories against terrorism and returned security to the country." While a Pentagon spokesman confirmed Russia has pounded ISIS targets, the strikes have also targeted Syrians opposed to the Assad dictatorship.

In a statement highly critical of the White House, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Russia and its proxies in Syria have gained an edge thanks to the Putin's military campaign. "They have changed the military facts on the ground and created the terms for a political settlement more favorable to their interests. This likely result is that the Syrian conflict will grind on, ISIL will grow stronger, and the refugees will keep coming."

Last week, Brett McGurk, President Barack Obama's envoy to the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS, announced that the militant group had lost more than 1,158 square miles of territory in Syria and more than 600 fighters over the past month.

Meanwhile in Geneva, a spokesman of the Syrian opposition, Salem Al Mislet, cautiously welcomed the move in hopes it would help the peace talks and a political transition. "As far as I know, the only plan B available is a return to war - and to even worse war than we had so far," Al Mislet said.

The Syrian conflict is moving into sixth year today. More than a quarter of a million people have been killed and half of Syria's population has been displaced, flooding Europe with refugees.

With files from the Associated Press.

Guests:

William Pomeranz, Deputy Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies of the Woodrow Wilson Center - a nonpartisan think tank

Michael Rubin, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute - a right-wing think tank; author "Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes" (Encounter Books; 2015)

Joshua Landis, Director, Center for Middle East Studies, University of Oklahoma; Landis’ blog is SyriaComment.com

Protesters with the "Occupy Wall Street" movement demonstrate before walking up 5th Avenue to rally in front of the residence of NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch.; Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A commonly cited figure concerning the wealth gap has it that the top 1 percent in the US own 42 percent of the wealth.

But a new paper from Brookings Institution has found that the chasm is smaller when using another method of measurement.

The Brookings study’s authors — including three Federal Reserve economists — took into account government benefits like Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps economically disadvantaged Americans receive when calculating income inequality. Those contributions, the report finds, increase the incomes of lower-income earners thereby shrinking the size of the wealth gap.

Using that methodology, the wealthiest 1 percent own 33 percent of overall wealth in the US.

What is the best way to calculate income disparity? Is it fair to include programs like Medicare into the calculation?

Measuring income and wealth at the top using administrative and survey data

Guests:

Aparna Mathur, a resident scholar in economic policy studies at the think tank American Enterprise Institute, where her research focuses on income inequality and mobility and other subjects

Christian Weller, a senior fellow at Center for American Progress, a DC-based nonpartisan policy institute. He is also a professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts, Boston

In this handout provided by the White House, U.S. President Barack Obama talks on the phone in the Oval Office.; Credit: Handout/Getty Images

Three names apparently remain on President Obama’s shortlist for a Supreme Court nominee, according to an anonymous source that spoke with Reuters.

They are federal appeals court judges Sri Srinivasan, Merrick Garland, and Paul Watford, a UCLA law graduate who is serving on the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

If nominated and confirmed, Watford would be the third African American – and the first Southern Californian – to serve on the high court.

Guest:

Julia Edwards, Justice correspondent for Reuters who broke the story