A (5:23)

I feel we. Well, I guess when the bar is the immediate aftermath of the election, I guess every day brings us closer to getting farther away from that. So better in the sense that we'll have a little bit of, you know, we've had a few months of introspection now, and hopefully we can figure out how to get our shit together moving forward.

B (5:44)

Who is we? Who do you see as the constituency necessary for Democrats that is different than the one they carried in the last election?

A (5:53)

Well, it has to be a bigger constituency, right? Like we have a vested interest in making sure that we expand our coalition because we simply can't win with the coalition that we have now. So I think it's incumbent upon Democrats not just to make sure that we shore up our base, but also to reach out to people who I think are, you know, those, those folks in the center who we largely lost. And that's gonna be people not just on the right, not just on the left. There's a lot of disaffected folks out there. So I think it's a fool's errand to just say like, okay, Democrats have to take tack right, Democrats have to have to tack left. It's not really a matter of that. I think that Democrats have to be smart about who they talk to, depending on what district they live in, depending on what state they're in. It can't be a monolithic approach. But the reality is that we've lost people in every demographic group in every state, every age range. And so we have to figure out how to talk to them and get those people back into the fold.

B (6:46)

Why doesn't BTC Enterprises make the obvious shift that we saw in this election where independents matched Republican votes and exceeded Democratic affiliated votes, and be an independent and just promote critical thinking as free agents?

A (7:09)

I think that you can. I think that you can do both. But I believe in the mission of the Democratic Party. I believe in more access to healthcare, lower cost for healthcare, combating climate change, making sure that workers live with some dignity and believe in preventing gun violence. A lot of the ideals of the Democratic Party I fundamentally believe in. And I also recognize as a pragmatist that we live in a two party system right now. And so I think the first party to fracture is the party that's effectively gonna cede control to the other. And I know that if, you know, look, if Democrats were to say, okay, we have to break into the progressives and the Bl dog Democrats. The only people that are going to benefit from this are not the potential blue dog Democratic party, it's the Republicans. And that's the sad reality of living in a two party system, but it is the reality of living in a two party system. And so I'd rather make sure that we do what we have to do to win, to actually wield power, to actually enact some of the agenda that we're looking to enact.

B (8:10)

What if what I'm saying is what you need to do to, to win and that the first to embrace ranked choice voting in their primaries and open up the system so you don't have to have the most extreme candidates. This afflicts the right more than it does the left. But even that vernacular, Brian, you know, we are in different generations, but my generation never discussed the political spectrum as left and right. It was always Democratic and Republican. Now we almost exclusively talk left and right and discuss the parties by name in subsidiary fashion. Doesn't that show you something directional?

A (8:51)

Yes, it does. But at the same time, look, I do think, I do think that there is a lot to be, a lot to be gained by having a strong, by having a strong party infrastructure. And it's more difficult inherently on the left because Democrats have, they are the big tent party. I mean there, there is no equivalency on the right for what we have on the left. Between Joe Manchin to aoc, there's just not. So it's going to be more difficult, but it's a double edged sword in that sense that it's hard to, you know, factor our messaging to make sure that we appeal to every facet of the left of center spectrum. But the flip side of that is that we have the possibility, if we can figure out how to message correctly and how to reach people correctly and how to fix our damaged brand, then we have the poss of kind of bringing so many more people into the fold in a way that we saw, you know, in 2008 with Barack Obama. But I do think that we, you know, I do think that we drive more benefit than disadvantage by virtue of hanging onto the party structure as it maintained, you know, as it exists right now.

B (9:56)

Obama was perceived as one thing, but programmatically he was much more mansion than aoc. And your party traditionally was much more mansion than aoc and America is much more mansion than aoc. How do you deal with that?

A (10:18)

I think that in some respects, look, it depends on the issue, right, because in some instances, gay marriage, for example. Yeah. Barack Obama was More mansion than aoc. But that's, you know, I would fundamentally disagree with that. And sometimes it just takes time for people to come around to these positions. Politics usually doesn't lead. Politics lags behind. And so once society became more accepting of gay marriage or same sex marriage, then I think Washington, as it usually does, eventually came around. So that's one instance where I don't think that, you know, I think the lesson here is the opposite. It's that it's that we didn't really gain much by virtue of being the last to embrace same sex marriage, which I think is fundamentally, fundamentally a moral thing, A moral thing to follow. But in some instances, you know, look, it's, you know, the American people are going to be more moderate. I think you have to take it issue by issue. And again, as I mentioned before, it's going to be a thing where you want specific representatives and specific senators, depending on where they come from, to be able to embrace different things. I think the Democratic Party does have to do a better job at. Okay, for example, if we have a possible lawmaker who isn't 100% on board with something like, like combating climate change, for example, which, which is my litmus test issue. But I have to recognize too that I would rather have a Democrat who's with me 50% of the time than a Republican who's with me 0% of the time. And so it's just a matter of becoming more tolerant of people with differing views if we want to actually have some longevity.

B (11:50)

It depends. It depends on what the views are. Just back to the analogy. And by the way, you know, one of the things, just one of the things that I love is, you know, how to disagree and make better points. And very often I feed you points that I don't necessarily hold myself, but I want to see how you deal with them. To the mansion AOC thing. AOC relents on nothing, positionally, unless there's something in it for her, which she has had to learn to do to be an operator within a power dynamic. I'm saying this as a compliment, not as a criticism, but otherwise she doesn't move because she's a zealot. Manchin is from West Virginia. Okay? Ruby Red. And that cat still went from it's a man and a woman in marriage to being behind the Respect for Marriage act in 2022. He moved, he evolved. That's what you could argue your party is suffering from is too many who don't evolve and stay in crazy town with extreme positions.

A (12:59)

I would push back on that example. And say, and say. While you claim that AOC is a zealot for being immovable, the, the example that you just gave is an instance where AOC was correct. And so luckily, like the only.

B (13:14)

Luckily, luckily, like the only one, though, what else has she been right about that the rest of the party, the rest of the country was wrong about?

A (13:22)

Yeah, I'm not sure. I mean, I can't think of an example off the top.

B (13:25)

What does that tell you? You're one of the smartest guys in your party.

A (13:28)

Well, look, you know, I don't have like a list AOC's positions in, in front of me, but, but I do think also something to take into consideration is that, is that for a lot of people in this country right now, specific policy positions are not necessarily what they vote on and certainly not some sacrosanct issue that they hold in high regard. I mean, for a lot of people in this country, they're just looking at vibes and they're just looking at passion and they're just thinking of, of what Donald Trump said. For example, he, this guy couldn't articulate his plan for childcare after he was, after he was asked it, what, three dozen times on like national forums, still couldn't articulate a coherent position on childcare. Meanwhile, you have Democrats who have like 16 page proposals on how they're gonna enact this stuff. And for a lot of people, that, that doesn't matter. For most people, the vast majority, because it doesn't happen. It doesn't matter. Well, perhaps that, that might be the broader reason. But, but look, it's not going to happen if there's no plan to have it.

B (14:23)

No, but if that, you do want.

A (14:25)

This stuff to happen. Do you trust someone who has the 16 page plan versus somebody who says, oh, well, we have concepts of a plan.

B (14:32)

I get it. But I think here's why the concepts of a plan thing didn't bite the way the Harris Walls ticket wanted it to bite.

A (14:43)

Yeah.

B (14:43)

Because the reality is the executive does not make the plan. The executive asks their people in Congress to come up with a plan that meets their goals and their requirements. Everybody knows that who's in the game. So the idea that you have to go in with a plan, Obama didn't go in with the aca. Congress is gonna make it up. Concepts are fine. It's about what those concepts are and how they work. Does that still leave Trump lacking? Yeah, but that's not why he won. He won because of it being an outrage. Election. We talked about this many times, you and I, and people were pissed off and you owned the status quo and they felt you were in denial of it and that she didn't represent and that the party had screwed up the process. So then you lost the democracy high ground. But it was an outrage election. And I guess it's. What do you do now in terms of, to use your word, vibe? Do you become more about collective outrage or do you dare to try to be better and try to switch the vibe from the negative to the positive?

A (15:57)

I think it's a few things. I think we have to be able to do a few things. The first is to make sure that we are. Look, Republicans have full control of government. They own everything, for better or for worse now. So they came into office saying that we're gonna lower the cost of eggs and food and houses and gas, and just, you know, across the board, they're going to lower prices. Now they have nobody to blame if and when they do it. So the onus is on us to make sure that we hold them to account to do the things that they themselves promised that they would do.

B (16:26)

No, you have to make sure, Brian, that they don't blame you for why they can't do it. Well, that he's already saying, you know, it's not easy to bring prices down. He's already saying it's not easy to bring prices down, which is of course fucking true, but he's going to blame you guys.

A (16:40)

And the irony of that is, you know, Republicans control every, every, every branch of government right now. And I say every branch because, I mean, the Supreme Court as well, but they control House, Senate, White House, and, and they will own every failure. But at the same time, to your exact point, if, if something they don't like happens in a state, well, does that state have a Democratic governor? Because then you can blame them. And if a state has a Republican governor, well, then you can go down to the city level and does this. Do the cities have Democratic representation? Then you can blame them. So Republicans will not accept blame for any, any of their failures. It's very much the Roy Cohn model that Donald Trump has has ascribed to. And that's, that's this idea of never, never admitting fault, never taking blame for anything, but taking full credit for all the successes. So to your point, I do think that the onus is on Democrats to make sure that we stay on top of Republicans because they're not going to take the blame for themselves. And in fact, they're going to do the opposite. They're going to blame the Democrats for anything that goes, that goes wrong. But to your, to your initial question, it's not enough anymore to just be anti Trump and it's not going to matter because he's a lame duck president anyway. And so we have to figure out what the Democratic brand is for. And I think a big part of that too is, and this, this isn't, this is so far separate from, from policy or legislation, it's just figuring out how to talk to people. That sounds like we're, we're actually communicating on a human level. And I think for so many Democrats, whether it's because we rely on, on polls to determine what the, what the safest way to communicate is, whether it's because, you know Democrats for better or for worse, or we have to take into account what special interest groups are concerned about. And so we want to talk in a way that is safe, unoffensive, uncontroversial, and that waters down our ability to sound human. And so we, we have to figure out a way to communicate with people that is effective and that doesn't just sound like, you know, like either a college professor or an AI bot.

B (18:37)

I want to, I want to go down that road two or three steps further. But first I have a practical question. There is a decent chance that Trump gets one, maybe two swings at major legislation because, yes, he controls, he runs the table. So he, yes, but very small numbers, very small numbers. And that means that things are gonna take time. He gets one or two swings before the midterms. Legislatively, you have to believe one of those two swings is gonna be comprehensive immigration reform. Do you think the Democrats must open their arms like this and walk towards the Republicans and say, let's make a deal, let's get whatever you want in there, cuz you got the numbers and we're gonna see what we can get in there. And let's make a deal and close the door on that issue. Beating you like a naughty child.

A (19:47)

It's a great point. And I do think there has to be some degree of willingness to compromise from the Democrats. And look, they were willing to do it. In this Congress, right now, the 118th Congress, we have the border bill that had no comprehensive immigration reform. It was just border security solely. So clearly Democrats were willing to do.

B (20:06)

It was too late and it was too narrow and it probably wouldn't have passed the earlier bill a few years ago is what the model will be. And my guess is that that's what the Republicans will use. And Then they'll take ownership of it, even though it was a Democrat idea. And you guys will have to swallow that in the interest of getting to a better place on the border. I think it's a big problem for you guys.

A (20:27)

You know, the irony of that is that there will probably be, you want to talk about whether there's an incentive structure to do something, there's probably going to be not so much buy in from the same Republic, from the same Democrats who were willing to embrace the, the, the border bill just a couple of months ago, because now it'll, you know, that will redouch Republicans benefit and show people that in fact, it's the Republicans who do it, which is, you know, the sad irony of that is that Democrats did put forward a bill and it was Trump. So you don't let them do that.

B (20:57)

If you join them, then they can't own it and say, and instead, to your messaging point, you say, well, now that you guys want to do something because you're in power will show our commitment to actually get it done, and then they can't beat you over the head with it in the next election.

A (21:12)

You know, the, the irony of that. And I agree, I agree that it should get done, that these people should be there, not to just go to Team Blue or Team Red and figure out how they can preserve all of these issues for when their own side is in power. I agree with that. And clearly there is a problem at the border, and clearly something needs to be done. So as somebody who doesn't want to see this issue percolate for the rest of time, get it the fuck done. But the irony of that is that when, when Democrats are in power or when they're not in power, they're always willing to compromise with Republicans. When Republicans are in power, they are not willing to do any compromising with Democrats if it helps them whatsoever. And so, for example, when, when Donald Trump was trying to pass the CARES act in the immediate aftermath of COVID you had all these Democrats come on board and sign up for the CARES act, even though doing so would help Trump politically. I mean, that was, that was, I believe, the vehicle for getting those stimulus checks out to Americans, if that sounds correct. It was a long time ago, but Democrats were willing to do that when the American Rescue plan came about just a few months later, when Biden was in office. No Republicans wanted to sign on because doing so would help Biden.

B (22:16)

They love that money and those projects that they took home from the infrastructure bill, of course, most of them went to red states.

A (22:22)

You want to talk about shamelessness? It's the degree with which these people will take credit for something that they're unwilling to support or because they know that will have some even tertiary benefit to the Democratic Party. And so they won't. Look at the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Look at the gun safety bill. Look at the infrastructure bill. Democrats will continue to pass legislation and not only facilitate compromise with Republicans, but even name the bills in such a way that people know that Republicans and Democrats work together. And yet when Republicans are in control, that doesn't exist.

B (22:58)

I know, but instead of playing their game, instead of playing their game, you should just double down on being better and just remind people of the work and expose the imbalance.

A (23:11)

I agree. I agree. And that's what you did in the last. And they will, by the way. They will. Because you and I both know that Democrats are going to come. We've already seen Democrats bending over backwards to figure out how they can work with Ro. Khanna has come out and said that he wants to work on Doge. I believe Moskowitz has said the same thing.

B (23:29)

Moskowitz is being rumored. I mean, you know, we'll see.

A (23:32)

As FEMA director.

B (23:32)

Yeah.

A (23:33)

So clearly there are. Bernie Sanders has come forward and said that, look, if Donald Trump wants to help enact some of what I've been pushing for for years, then more power to him. I'll support him on issues where I've been supportive over the last few decades of my career. But I do think so. I do think that they will do that regardless. But it is just, you know, you want to talk about the asymmetry at play between the two parties. That's it on full display right there.

B (24:06)

Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from Radioactive media business owners CMOs. You got a plan on growing in 2025, right? There's going to be a lot of uncertainties this year. But not everything's uncertain, right? One thing for certain things are going to be different. Why not utilize something reliable and stable for your marketing efforts and tap into the power of podcast and radio reach in the U.S. listen to this. Audio reaches more than 271 million people every week. That's more than social media and digital media combined. My friends at Radioactive Media know the recipe to launch, optimize and scale performance by building compelling audio campaigns which actually work. Their personal approach, knowledge of the medium is unparalleled. They believe in the power of radio so much, they even use it themselves. Right here, right now. Text my first name, Chris, to 511-511 just text Chris to 511-511 or go on the web@roadactive media.com text rates may apply. Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from Cozy Earth. Look, your resolutions got to include getting better rest. Cozy Earth helps. There's a reason that it's got best selling bedding. Here's what I like about it. There's technology in the textile. When it's cold, it helps keep you warm. When it's warm, it does help keep you cool. How? I don't know. And I actually research it and I still don't get it. But it doesn't matter because they know how to do it. At Cozy Earth I like to be responsible about my purchases and I do like to feel that what I'm doing may help make something I care about a little bit better. They're using bamboo, not the materials that textile companies usually do and bamboo is highly sustainable. It's not doing anything bad to anything and it's fast and it's easy for them to use. A better year starts with better sleep. Wrap yourself in Cozy Earth. Please don't wait. Head to cozyearth.com Chris use my exclusive code Chris up to 40% off. How amazing is that? Cozyearth.com Chris if you get a post purchase survey, please say you heard about Cozy Earth from the Chris Cuomo Project podcast. You guys send me the comments saying thanks, you love this stuff. Tell them do the Democrats have the ability to not jump on everything that.

A (26:34)

Trump says We're going to have to. And I've been beating the drum about this over and over that if everything feels like a five alarm fire, then then in turn nothing is going to feel like a five alarm fire. And we don't have the same, the same degree of energy to resist Donald Trump as was present in 2017. And so, and so inherently within that we have to figure out how to pick our battles. And I think that there is some understanding of that. The folks that I've talked to just in the few interviews that I've done since the election, whether it's Brian Schatz, whether it's Amy Klobuchar, a lot of these people are repeating the same points that we have to figure out where to pick our battles. And that means that some, some things that are normally going to be considered disqualifying are going to happen anyway. Some people who would normally be disqualifying as nomin are going to get confirmed anyway. But the onus is on us to, to figure out where to Pick our battles, which hills to die on because we just don't have the energy and we don't have the numbers to, to raise us, think about everything. And so we have no choice but to figure out where to, to focus our energy. Well, and by the way, that that's what I view my job within the, the broader messaging apparatus of the party as being is, is figuring out how to make sure that Democrats aren't waking up every single day and going and going health care, abortion, gun safety, climate change. And when we're just kind of throwing, throwing messaging left and right, really nothing sticks. At the end of the day, to their credit, Republicans have been really effective over the last decade. It feels like where I can only presume that they wake up and go into the morning meeting and figure out what they're gonna talk about that day. And this way everybody's coordinated. This way everybody's organized. And so starting at 5am with Fox and Friends, all the way to Jeanine, Judge Jeanine and Laura Ingr Sean Hannity at night, they are saying the exact same thing. And so of course, of course this messaging gets seared into the brains of their supporters. Whether they're watching on Fox or Oan.

B (28:26)

Or snacks or rumble, they pick the right set of 60 40s. So in politics there's a practice called the 60 40, which is certain issues break 60 40. Like what? Like allowing kids any kind of control over anything medical, let alone trans surgery. It's just 60 40. Parents are like, no, that's crazy. And Democrats will then argue the nuance and what it's really about, but it doesn't matter. The argument's over. This is why they hit the trans on that and on the trans community's participation in Sports. It's a 6040 split. Nobody wants even the idea, even if it never really happens, just the idea has a 6040 split to it. And they poached on all of those issues. And you're talking climate change, gun safety. These are all on the 40 side of propositions. Climate change. Well, what does it mean? Because it seems to mean a limitation of something I want right now which is gonna put me on the 60 side. Like for instance, EVs. Mandating EVs. How does Elon Musk wind up with Trump when he stands the most to lose from how Trump feels about EVs? Because he knows that he's on the 40 side of the 6040 split. Elon. And that you gotta have every kind of fuel source being tapped instead of saying you have to use just One, that's what the Democrats have to get better at, seeing where the majority is on things and not seeming like you're against the majority.

A (30:10)

Yes. And because for a lot of Democratic issues, they're already on those, on those sides of the issues. And that's why when, when they're present as standalone issues on, on, on ballots like ballot measures or ballot initiatives, like, you know, overturning right to work or, or abortion or legalizing marijuana, these are Democratic positions that, that far exceed the performance of Democrats themselves on these ballots. I think what Democrats have to get, embracing the 60 side of these 60, 40 issues, but also figuring out how to message them in a way that people actually know that the issues that you support are also going to be enacted by the party that you don't support.

B (30:53)

Right.

A (30:54)

And so a big part of that, by the way, is the asymmetry in the media ecosystem. The left. The Democratic Party for so long has relied on legacy media as our message distribution system. And they're not, in fact, legacy media. Mainstream media bends over backwards to prove that it's not liberal media. How many times did the New York Times run front page cover stories on Hillary's emails? This is, they are not on our team. The same way that Fox is on the Republican Party's team, that OAN and Newsmax are on their team, that, that Infowars and Megyn Kelly show and Daily Wire, they are on the Republican Party's team.

B (31:30)

Digital media is overweighted to the right. I would argue legacy media went after Trump in a way that, you know, did, did as much favor for Biden as anything did. But I, I appreciate your point. I think you're right on the digital side specifically. And that's why one of the reasons I love you, by the way, and my father would have loved you. I don't know where Andrew is on you, but my, my, my father, you know, I can't tell you how many genera, how many Democrats in your generation talk to me about your party. Like, I don't understand it. Like, I don't, I don't know what it is to be like, you know, which I find so offensive that I don't even address it because I don't know how to address it without being physical. So. But my father.

A (32:18)

Are you trying, are you suggesting that the Cuomos don't have, don't have any legacy with.

B (32:22)

We don't have any, we don't have any DAP anymore, it turns out as Democrats, which is kind of weird, but. Except at the convention where they Kept showing clips of my father, the who and the how of the messaging. I want to talk about a little bit the Maddow effect. I always called Rachel the professor when I went against her at cnn. So smart, such a high level of erudition and research. She could talk about whatever she wanted at night that was totally not on the news and it would still work with that audience because they just wanted her take on things that, that were appreciated by existing Democratic beliefs. And that's also why she was losing audience to me and to Fox was because the mistake of the smart Democrat. And there is a high degree of intelligence on the Democratic side. Now, a lot of it has been co opted by, in my opinion, culture wars. But the condescension, the arrogance, the you're an idiot. So let me see if I can bring you along to where I am because I'm much smarter than you. Was a huge problem for Democrats that Trump wound up benefiting from because of how bad his language is and how rough around the edges he is and unsophisticated. And it made people feel better about being against this level of sophistication. You conversely, get that. And you are not Rachel Maddow. You are smart, you are well researched with what you do, but you do not make me feel bad about it. You do not talk down to me. And I think that that is a, a fundamental thing that you guys have to learn. And I think Kamala read really condescending to people and Americans may not be the most studied, but they're really sensitive to being stupid and that's a tough spot. Do you recognize that within your own persuasion?

A (34:42)

Yes. I mean, it's clearly like an issue, a very visible issue within the Democratic Party, like on the left, is that, is that there is a degree of even, even for me as a content creator, if I, if I step one step left to center and say something incorrect or even, or even misquote something or whatever it is, I mean, I'll get, I'll get completely beat up. Democrats love to lecture other Democrats, Democrats love to scold. And I think that's something that we have to get over as, as a party because, you know, to your point, I mean, you catch more flies with honey, right? And I think that we have to recognize just basic sociology, just basic how to reach out to people, how to make people feel like they want to be part of your coal coalition. And you know, look, I'm guilty of it too, because I think that most of the stuff that falls out of Donald Trump's face makes him sound really fucking stupid. And it's hard not to just say this guy's really fucking stupid and that the people who support him therefore are stupid. But I think that that's something that we have to figure out how not to do. And in fact, the thing that I've been focused on over the last couple of years is not to blame people who believe Fox News when they lie on Trump's behalf, for example, it's, it's to appeal to them in such a way that says, like, look, these people are lying to you. Have more respect for yourself than, than to trust people like this who are going to lie right to your face. I mean, I often say in my videos that, that it feels like the Republicans biggest enemies are the Democrats, but in fact, the people that, that Republicans have the most contempt for are their own supporters. That they're willing to lie to them for years and years and years about certain issues that have no basis in reality. I mean, this idea that the 2020 election was stolen, first of all, there was no basis for it for the last four years. They didn't win a single lawsuit that proved any semblance of fraud. But then the fact that, okay, let's humor this idea and let's say that Democrats did have the ability to rig an election, did they just forget to do it in 2024? And I mean, they completely let go when Trump won. And so this thing vanished like a fart in a hurricane after Republicans were beating the drum about this for years and years. So I would ask their supporters, either do you recognize that, that you, that you were lied to over these last four years when Republicans manipulated you and the Republican Party manipulated you into thinking that there was fraud as a way to either curry favor for themselves, present themselves as the victim, be able to enact voter suppression laws, whatever it was, this was just a vehicle to get people to buy into something that was completely bogus. And so that's just some microcosm of a broader, of a broader problem. But, but I think the way to go about doing this is, is to say, is to not show any disdain for the people who supported Trump, because I think, you know, in large part, people only know what they know. And if they watch right wing media, for example, which often operates as a hermetically sealed bubble of information, they're not gonna get the whole story. And so you can't blame these people for only knowing what they know or not knowing what they don't know. And so that, that's, that's my job over the next, you know, few years to make sure that, okay, this guy came into office, this. Claiming to be a populist. Let's see what happens with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Let's see what happens with the U.S. postal Service, which makes sure. Which overwhelmingly, disproportionately benefits people in rural areas who rely on the USPS for. For medication. I mean, on issue after issue after issue, Trump came into office as a populist, so. So let's see what happens to the people who expect him to actually stay true to his word.

B (38:13)

You have to, yes, but you have to remember what the standard is, and you're touching on the right aspect, which is fact versus feel. Okay, I will beat you three times out of three if I take feel and you take fact on any issue rhetorically, let alone politically. Because one of the cardinal sins in politics is that you don't get to tell me that I'm wrong to feel the way I feel. And that's really maddening in politics. My father used to have a joke that, you know, how you deal with high taxes, how you tell the voter, you know what you should do if you don't like the taxes, you should make more money. You should be more valuable to the society and to the economy, so then you won't really worry about your tax burden, but you're not that useful to the economy, and so you have to be sensitive to taxes. No politician will ever say that because you'll never get that person's vote. You don't fuck with how people feel. Democrats were in that position because Trump owned Feel. I'm angry, I'm outraged. I'm against this. Government sucks. Institutions suck. The media sucks. People who are different than me suck. And that is tough to win on by saying, you're wrong to feel that way. However, there's a reason that you guys. It's not just because it's a binary system. There's a reason that Democrats have more than held their own when it comes to national elections, and it's because Americans are fundamentally aspirational. We are fundamentally. This is why candidates matter. Fundamentally. We want reason to believe. We want to be lifted up. We want it to be okay. That's the space. There's nothing about Trump in the next three years, the next three months, that is gonna read as it's okay. The delusion that he can talk to the people in the Middle east, that he can talk to Putin, that he can and make a deal. The guy has never made a deal for anyone. But Himself, ever. The. Even the redone NAFTA that was almost all in place already. And the right thing to do. He's very good at that. He is better than you guys at seeing opportunities and seeing spaces that your sense of ideology and intellectual sophistication doesn't really allow you to fuck with them. But my father did, Kennedy did, Jackson did, Clinton did, Obama even did. Although I would say he was a turn away from the normal. Which is what? Holy cow. Does this guy make you fall in love with him.

A (41:05)

Wow.

B (41:06)

Does Bill Clinton. I don't care what you like or what you don't like. This guy gets it. He gets where you're coming from. He gets how you feel. But he has a totally different set of facts. And that was the difference. You have to have candidates that can do that. Obama got how you felt, but he totally disagreed with you on everything. Mario Cuomo, you know, I like that guy. I just hate his positions. You will never hear that about a Democrat today. Why? Because they've missed the feel of these people and how they feel and why they feel that way. And you left out one of the networks. MSNBC has hurt you guys tremendously. And that's why the media is allowing right now an exaggerated takedown of MSNBC and frankly, cnn. To be honest, the media is only too happy to say that CNN is in the shitter. No, it isn't. It's gonna be fine. And yes, I got shit canned from cnn. I blame the two guys who did it to me, not cnn. I love that place and I miss it and I wish them well. MSNBC is a different story. Joy Reid has been allowed to say things on TV that no one else would be allowed to say anywhere else. And not just the stuff from back in the day, the homophobic stuff. Her saying that she didn't think that Trump got shot at. You would get fired anywhere else but msnbc. Them not talking about Al Sharpton taking money for his organization before he interviewed Kamala Harris. And they don't say anything, but they went crazy about Ronna McDaniels. That's a problem for you guys. And you have to course correct that. And you do have the perfect space, Bri. It's gotta be in the digital space. And I think that you're uniquely positioned because. And I used to come at this with people. I don't anymore, because I understand why I was wrong. You don't have a background in politics. You have a background in production, driving narratives, acting, writing. That is very, very useful. I used to be like Man, I've worked in 15 campaigns. This fucking guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Okay? That's one skill set. But I'm not asking you to handicap a race. I'm not asking you to talk about what's inside some district and who's run it before. That's one set of information. Knowing how to talk to people and make them like what you're saying is what they're beating you with on the right right now. How is Joe Rogan beating Brian Tyler Cohen beating Rachel Maddow? How? Because he feels the way these people feel. That's the space. How do you inhabit it?

A (43:49)

I think it's the right question. I mean, it's what I've been thinking about a lot. And it's how I've been. I've been trying to iterate a little bit too, and figuring out what the best place for me to occupy is. And look, I could. I could do the easy thing right now, which is just to do exactly what I was doing before the election. I was reaching on average, I mean, just in the lead up to the election, 5, 6 million people, 7 million people per day. That is the easy thing to do. But I'm in the business, I think of persuasion and I occupy. There aren't that many people on the left who are able to reach a broad audience of people. And so when I think about where I like what my position in the, the, in this broader ecosystem is, I'm trying to figure out where I can be most helpful. You know, I've, I've, I've dropped the suits. Except when I go on your show, of course, I have to.

B (44:37)

You looked great, by the way. Everybody loves you. Everybody loves you. People say all the time on News Nation. Remember, News Nation was built for a very specific purpose. I cannot believe we haven't been blown up for this yet. But the place is built for independence. It is the only media platform ever that is openly hostile to the party system. And we want people to reject it. And I'm fine with the media ignoring it. They're ignoring it because they'd rather play the game than expose the game. And I'm okay with that. I've been in the media for 25 years. I get why they're doing it. It makes sense. It's just. It's time has passed. But my audience, when you come on, says, yeah, I like them. I like what he says. He's reasonable. I don't agree on some of the shit. I don't like why he says Some of those things. But again, that's the secret sauce, my brother. Do not lose that just to have people who think like you right now, love you a little bit more and see you as one of their oracles. That's the future.

A (45:35)

That's the thing. Like, in terms of where I go, I do think that speaking to folks who watch your show is valuable because these are the people that we need to be reaching out to. These are the people who Democrats lost in this last election cycle. And again, if the game is Persuasion, again, to my earlier point, it would be easy for me to just keep doing what I'm doing, reaching a big audience of people, keep bringing sand to the beach, keep getting applause from the same people who I know are going to clap for me. And, like, that's one thing. That's the easy. That's the easy approach to all of this. Now I'm trying to figure out what I can do, knowing full well that we've got the people that we've got. How do we. How do we, you know, expand beyond the coalition that we have. How do we broaden. How do we broaden our reach? And so that's how. That's what I'm thinking about as we. As we're now in 2025 and heading. Heading toward the next two years of politics. Until we get to. Until we get to the future, you.

B (46:21)

Have to find your spots of where the names that are, whatever, the reach, that's the same as yours or greater than yours. Okay. On the right, they're giving you opportunities every five minutes, like Rogan putting out another look. And again, I think you gotta be careful about beating up on Rogan because he's like their spirit.

A (46:41)

I don't think it's worth it to beat up on Rogan at all.

B (46:43)

He's like their spirit animal. And everybody knows he's now political. Everybody knows because he says it. He's like the opposite of you. He's like, what do I know? What do I know? I'm high half the time, so there's no percentage in that. But when he says, this is the only video that makes sense to me about the drones.

A (46:59)

Yeah.

B (46:59)

And it's a guy who's full of shit saying things that is completely wrong. There is a real opportunity there to say, you know, I'm fucked up about these drones too. And I don't. But this is totally not where we need to be right now. Because if Joe had just had some people do a little bit of work for him. This is medical equipment. We're talking about nobody searches for anything at night unless they have to. And if you were looking for spent nukes, there are nine different departments that do it and they would be coordinating with law enforcement and be all over the place. That's not what's going on. I know that sounds good, but it's not what it is. See, then you get the feel of the urgency and you expose what a weak product that is. That's the space for you.

A (47:50)

I do think that this issue more broadly is actually a pretty accurate microcosm of what the Democratic Party's problem is, which is that we all know why none of the Democrats are coming out and saying anything. It's because their whole thing is that, okay, we have to trust in the institutions and that law enforcement knows what it's doing, and let's just keep the public in the dark because this is stupid.

B (48:12)

They think UAPs are stupid for stupid people.

A (48:15)

Don't, don't humor this stuff. It's not, it's not worth our time to even, to even engage. And so that creates a vacuum that is then inevitably filled with disinformation. If the people who know the truth aren't coming out and saying something, then inherently the only people who have, who will fill that space are people who don't know the truth. And so then it's filled with bullshit. But I think that more broadly, this is a lesson for Democrats in what happens when we just ask people to have some faith in institutions, when largely that's not the moment that we're in right now. People don't trust the institutions. People aren't going to vote for somebody because they're going to be more deferential to norms. And so we have to meet people where they are knowing full well that they don't have trust in our institutions right now. If we don't give some accurate information and give them something, as opposed to just telling them, like, sit down, be a good little boy and girl, and just trust that mommy and daddy know what they're doing. Then we're going to be stuck in the moment that we're in right now, which is when these random dudes are going on TikTok and spewing bullshit and like, what else do we have? What, what, what else, what other side of the narrative is there to combat what we're hearing?

B (49:21)

Who are your leaders?

A (49:25)

That's a good question. The leaders of the Democratic Party right now? I'm not exactly sure. I think that there's going to be some type of, I don't know, Reckoning where we figure it out. I know who our party's strongest messengers are. I don't know that we really have. I don't know that we have like a leader of the party. I mean, you can go to maybe the last leader of the party is Barack Obama. I mean, I don't think most people would see, you know, obviously Kamala Harris having lost this campaign. People are going to look at her as the leader of the party. Joe Biden I think is too politically damaged to be viewed as the leader of them, of the Democratic Party. And I think people do blame his unwillingness to step aside earlier in his term as the reason that we're in the situation that we're in now, whether fairly or not. But in terms of the leaders, I mean you look at for progressives, AOC is probably the most effective communicator we have. Gavin Newsom is probably one of the most effective fighters we have. Pete Buttigieg is probably one of the most also effective communicators that we have and one of the only people that's willing to and capable of going into enemy territory, so to speak, and fighting for the Democratic agenda. So we have kind of a smattering of people, but there is clearly no leader of the Democrats right now that I can see.

B (50:41)

You have to emerge as even more of a. Right now you're successful, that's what you are. You got that, you checked that box and you've checked it at a ridiculously young age. Good for you. Good for you. I'm a big booster of yours because I love rewarding success. I appreciate that you are a leader. I'm not saying you gotta run for office. I'm saying you didn't mention a single person who's outside the system. And you are in an environment of disruption. And one thing that a disruptor must have is one of two qualifications. I don't know shit about this system, but I hate it. Okay, that's Trump. Okay. The second one is much tougher to finesse, but can be much more potent, which is, oh, I know it really well and I'm going to help you change it because it has to much tougher to finesse. Cuz you're part of the problem. You guys have no outsiders. That's why I think Cuban has such value. And I'm not saying he's got a running for president.

A (51:45)

When you started talking about people who were outside of the system, my first thought went to him because he has, look, he has a lot of the qualities that Trump was able to exploit for his own advantage. I mean, you know, a billionaire, he is on a successful TV show. He is actually the real version of what Donald Trump. Trump tries to frame himself as being he and he actually knows how to do it. He's actually successful at business. This isn't just like shitty licensing deals for the last two decades and slapping his name on a bunch of failed projects. This is somebody who actually knows what he's doing. And so I think there is value. It's a tough sell in today's Democratic Party because there is, I feel like, especially among progressives, there is a hostility toward the wealthy in this country. And I think that's in large part well founded because so many of the figures that are like American oligarchs, oligarchs have used their wealth not to help help people. But I mean, you know, it's about the billions.

B (52:42)

That's how you got Trump, that's how you got Elon. And the. It's okay to be wealthy. Everybody wants to be wealthy 100%.

A (52:51)

And by the way, I'm, I'm, I'm a capitalist through and through. I'm not, I'm not like, I don't, I don't subscribe to this faction of the Democratic Party that says like everybody has to be socialist. And I actually think that that's probably overstated in terms of people who actually think that way. But, but you know, to the, to the point I was making, a lot of these people, they could be doing more. I think what Mark Cuban is doing with Cost plus drugs is a good model that we just don't see replicated. And it's a shame that with, with guys like Bezos, guys like Elon, that, that are, that are purportedly focusing on interplanetary, you know, populations like maybe just fix, maybe fix healthcare, maybe make sure that people can live with some dignity here. Maybe pay the employees that work for you a way to allow them to unionize.

B (53:37)

That's ego. I think that here's the space. This jackass from your generation kills the CEO. Young people are all over the place on the Internet then and now saying for one reason or another, basically it's okay and it's not really healthcare centric because most people in their 20s aren't paying for healthcare because they're still on their parents plans or they forego it because they don't really need it and it's expensive. What it is is a rejection of if you're lucky, big business, if you're unlucky capitalists, if it's capitalism, run away from it, you're going to lose 10 times out of 10.

A (54:27)

Yeah.

B (54:28)

If it's the other, which I think it can be because they don't know enough about insurance. They're just, they're taking information and putting it out as if they've all been victimized by insurers when they haven't. They're not, they're not even in it yet. You guys Democrats, Right. But look, I'm saying they can know things from their family experience, but the elements. Look, look, the assassin's a great example. The lived experience. His lived experience is generational wealth from nursing homes. He never had a healthcare problem that they couldn't pay his way out of. He was living in Hawaii on his parents dime. So I'm just saying bad change agent. But the point remains the same. If Democrats go after Big Pharma, if they go after the health care companies, the insurance companies, not the providers because they're all broke, but the insurance companies, that's where people meet fact and feel. And if Democrats can do that, I agree with that. And it's such an obvious target. It's been staring at us for 20 years. Not just insurance, Big Pharma and insurance. Now the problem is they dump money on politicians. But that's the play. The play is they dump money on us anyway. I'm going to come after them and yeah, they can give me money. I need it to fight against people. I'm coming for them. Bernie's right about that. He just doesn't, he just does it in a way to get this instead of to make change. You know, that's why Big Pharma, you know, Big Pharma came up with the will reduce insulin for Medicaid. That was their industry solution that was offered up and the Democrats took it. And they did it because they priced it in as way better than messing with anything that they're doing on the open market.

A (56:25)

Totally.

B (56:26)

That is the target for Democrats or Republicans to match fact and feel with something that really affects the American people and not because these kids online are saying what they're saying. I don't believe in brutality as a change mechanism, but they're not wrong to be against who was victimized in this case. And there's opportunity in that 100%.

A (56:50)

And I think that Republicans have been very good at figuring out the people that they need to scapegoat. And you know, for how many years did we listen to Hillary Clinton as the cause for all problems in the United States? How many years do we have to listen to George Soros being the biggest boogeyman in this entire country, good at picking out people and making the hunter. Biden is the, is the most recent one. They're very good at scapegoating certain people. Democrats don't do that. And we have institutions, organizations, businesses that we should be focusing on that are, by the way, way more potent in terms of the, the, you know, these are the people who are entrenching the very systems that Americans so overwhelmingly disagree with. To your exact point, Big pharma and why we don't focus on them and take a page at a Republican's book. But to do it in a way that's virtuous is beyond me. But until Democrats learn that lesson and learn how people kind of respond to this type of criticism and yes, respond to villains. Republicans know how to make this into a story. Republicans know how to tell the story. Villains are.

B (57:52)

That's your villain.

A (57:53)

Exactly.

B (57:54)

I mean, you know, Bobby's touching on it a little bit with food, but even Bobby, very interesting. You want to coat drink a Mexican Coke. What does that tell you? First of all, Bobby's not wrong. Right. Sugar is bad. Processed sugar is really bad. And Mexican Coke uses cane sugar, not high fructose corn syrup. Okay, why did he say Coke and not Pepsi? Because even he is hedging because he knows that, hey, I'm gonna have real power here now. And I gotta be careful who my enemies are. And I can't have the whole agribusiness coming after me. They'll kill, kill me. That's the space for you is what are Democrats about in the digital sphere other than telling us how much smarter they are than us? They're fighting the fights that matter. You want to go after food? Fine. It's all about a pill for every ill. Big pharma is what's behind what's in our food. And it only works for them. It doesn't work for anybody else, except for abundance. And, and almost every financial problem that people have is related somehow to insurance. You can't buy a house because you can't get the insurance. You can't, can't afford it. The insurance on the mortgage is even more of a problem than the rate of the mortgage. Health insurance, no brainer. Everybody knows it. But that is a space where Democrats or Republicans, anybody who wants to fight the good fight fight, instead of telling me why the other guys are worse, start pointing those fingers at the people who are bigger than both of you.

A (59:29)

That's a space 100%. And I do think it's twofold. So it's one, being able to do that and having the courage to do that. And look, nobody will be a bigger advocate for Democratic wins than me. But Democrats do not take advantage of these opportunities. Absolutely don't. And I know it's because too many of them are bought by the insurance companies. I mean, you're speaking about Bernie Sanders, but to his credit, he has been, been probably the most consistent messenger in the Democratic Party for as long as I've been alive about this exact issue. And that's why he has the space to be able to say what he says, because people trust him. They know he's not full of shit. They know he's not for sale. You may not agree with him, you may not align yourself with him, but you can't doubt that this guy is a consistent messenger and that he's trustworthy.

B (60:13)

He believes that he just doesn't get enough done because he doesn't know how to make deals with the other side.

A (60:18)

Well, I think, I think what the Democrats have to do more broadly is, is A, have the courage to take on these fights, but B, make sure that we build up an infrastructure to be able to sell those wins. Because, you know, this is, this is a situation where a tree falls in the woods, no one's around to hear it, doesn't make a sound. If, if, if we can't get through to people who aren't listening to Democrats because we don't have the channels big enough to reach them, then it's not going to matter what we do. And look, Democrats did a lot in the first two years of Joe Biden's presidency, probably more than any other president in modern American history, maybe with an exception of like FDR or JFK or LBJ, right? I mean, American Rescue Plan, Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS Act, PACT act, infrastructure law, gun safety law, added 16 million jobs, brought the unemployment rate down to a 50 year low, stock market's up to a record high. That is by, by all measures a massive success. But so many people in this country didn't, didn't feel it. Or they'll look back at Trump's presidency where he lost 3 million jobs total and had they give him a pass to the pandemic. They give him a pass to the pandemic.

B (61:24)

They give him a pass for the pandemic.

A (61:26)

His only legislative accomplishment was a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. 83% of the benefits conferred to the top tenth of a percent. And somehow look back at that, and that's because they are exposed to immediate infrastructure that will relentlessly present Donald Trump as some. As some jobs creator, as some savior, as some economic rehabilitator. And we just don't have. We just don't have an equivalent.

B (61:49)

You gotta pick the right bad guys. I'm telling you. I know that. This is the play.

A (61:56)

Yeah.

B (61:56)

You can't go after Trump and co. It can't be that he's a tyrant. Look at what he's doing. He's a tyrant. Look at what he's doing. He's a tyrant. He's not a tyrant. He's not gonna be a tyrant. He's not smart enough to be a tyrant. He's not inclined to be a tyrant. He's putting people around him cuz he's scared. And he wants to say fuck you to the people that he hates. He wants people in control of agencies to make sure the agencies don't come after him. That's why he's picking straight up loyalists. Let it go. Let's see what they do. And let's see what they do with the real bad guys. They are gonna come after you guys. That's what they're gonna do. They're gonna investigate the January 6th committee. They're gonna go after Adam Schiff. They're gonna go after those boogeymen. Cause those are their bad guys. They're not the best bad guys. The best bad guys are the people that created the cost structure that got Americans to ignore the achievements that you just outlined. Brian, why didn't you get the credit for those pieces of legislation? Cuz the cost structure is still against the the consumer. Why? Because of these big pigs.

A (63:02)

Yeah.

B (63:03)

Go after the big pigs. And they won't be doing that on the right. It's too hard. It's much easier for them to go after trans people. All 002% of them. Like they're the problem in society. And you know what I would always say is the day that trans are a bigger threat to me than we are to them, I'll start worrying about them. These people get bullied. These kids are savage. The rates of suicide are fucking off the charts. And they don't want to pretend in their culture war that they have anything to do with that. No. That's because they're being put in horrible positions by their families. Oh yeah, sure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with you demonizing them all. Five seconds. I'm sure that doesn't add to their pain. My point is pick the right bad guys and I am Here for it. You can have a platform on News Nation with me whenever you want it. You want me on your podcast to talk about what's going on, you call, I'm there. You want to do it regularly here. I'm here. You are a leader for your generation in the digital sphere. You're going to grow and you're going to make choices. Some are going to be good, some are going to be bad. Don't let that make you make less choices. But I believe in you and I believe in what you're about. And I don't have to agree with you. But the conversation is the cure and I'm here for it. And I look forward to seeing what you do this year and next.

A (64:22)

Chris, thank you so much. I mean, you know, you and I have spoken offline. You've been a huge source of inspiration for me since the day I started watching political coverage. So appreciate, you know, I appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation with you. And happy 2025 here.

B (64:38)

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And look, look, I don't like the party system, but you are correct. We are stuck with it the way it is, at least for now. And I understand why you want to work within. It doesn't work for me, but that's okay. It works for you. And I'm here to talk about it. And I appreciate you.

A (64:57)

Thanks, Chris.

B (65:03)

Brian Tyler Cohen. Always ready for the conversation. Always. Doesn't mean that we're gonna agree, but how we disagree matters more than anything else. Who wants to agree all the time? That's boring. But why you're disagreeing and how you see it differently is really instructive for us in getting to a better place. Cuz let's be honest, we can't stay here. This sucks. I'm Chris Cuomo. Thank you very much for subscribing and following to the Chris Cuomo Project. Thank you for checking me out on News Nation. 8p and 11p every weekday night. I know that you don't like the ads. I get it. I'm a pod guy. Also, I get how ads can be a little bit much. Subscribe on the substack. Okay. You get it ad free. Even Joe Rogan doesn't offer you that. Five bucks a month. You get Long Covid care and treatment ideas from my doctor for longevity and Long Covid and vaccine injuries. You get my Walk and Talk series about what I've learned about life through my study of philosophy, even though I don't practice it well. But you can. And it's all for five bucks. And I'm using that money to help people get care for long Covid if they can't afford it. Pretty good deal, right? My friends, there's plenty of us to care about together. So what do you say? Let's get after it.