Inside the Democrats’ Winning Formula (with Brian Tyler Cohen)

Summary

The Chris Cuomo Project

Episode: Inside the Democrats’ Winning Formula (with Brian Tyler Cohen)

Date: December 2, 2025
Host: Chris Cuomo
Guest: Brian Tyler Cohen (progressive commentator, host, activist)

---

Overview

This episode features an in-depth conversation between Chris Cuomo and Brian Tyler Cohen about the modern Democratic Party’s strategy, the evolving media landscape, and how Democrats should position themselves in upcoming elections. The discussion covers the Democratic “winning formula,” debates over messaging priorities (affordability vs. outrage), the impact of the current media environment, and reflections on political authenticity, patriotism, and generational change within the party.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Democrats’ “Winning Formula” and Strategic Dilemma

[03:08–05:06]

• Cuomo kicks off by asking why Democrats aren’t relentlessly focused on “affordability” (costs, kitchen table issues).
• Cohen says Democrats must “walk and chew gum”—balancing affordability messages with responses to daily political events and scandals to avoid coming off as robotic.
  • “You have to be able to do both just recognizing the media environment that we’re in. ...if you can’t help but pivot back to affordability, you’re going to feel robotic to some degree at some point.” (Cohen, 04:13)

2. Breaking Through in a Noisy Media Environment

[05:06–07:50]

• Cuomo questions whether the “dual focus” strategy is truly effective for winning elections vs. just generating online engagement.
• Cohen argues Democrats must claim media attention or risk ceding the narrative to Republicans, drawing lessons from the ACA/Obamacare backlash and “death panels.”
  • “There’s a lot of danger in ceding this ground and creating a vacuum that Republicans can then fill. Democrats have to be present.” (Cohen, 07:42)

3. Two Democratic Styles: Firebrands vs. Institutionalists

[07:50–11:12]

• Cuomo contrasts “firebrands” like Zoran Mamdani (populist/angry style) with institutional types like Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill (system insiders).
• Cohen: The party needs both types; there’s real appetite for fighters who reject the old “strongly worded letter” approach.
  • “There’s a lot of hunger on the left for people who are actually going to fight, who are going to recognize the urgency of the moment...” (Cohen, 10:32)

4. The Burden of Identity Politics & Right-Wing Attacks

[11:12–14:49]

• Cuomo presses about Democrats having to defend against right-wing narratives (socialism, anti-Semitism, identity politics).
• Cohen: Those attacks backfired in 2024; voters see the Republican focus on social issues and culture wars as cynical and ineffective given Republican failures on policy.
  • “They ran an entire campaign predicated on...your transgender reassignment surgeries in prison. ... What that got us...is a bunch of lies from an administration that has no interest in following through on their promises.” (Cohen, 12:51)

5. Why Democrats Struggle With Messaging on Costs & Corruption

[28:47–34:02]

• Cuomo and Cohen perform a debate exercise, testing whether an affordability-only message is a winning play.
• Cohen emphasizes exposing Republican hypocrisy, corruption, and lack of delivery on promises, but agrees that focusing on costs is critical.
• Cohen notes that the new media environment privileges continuous, conversational engagement over the classic “October ad blitz.”

6. The Challenge of Substance vs. Clickbait

[42:38–47:41]

• Cuomo laments the lack of real fight against industry interests (e.g. insurance companies) in favor of spectacle, and the difficulty of selling boring but necessary policy debates.
• Cohen explains his “pill in peanut butter” philosophy: attract audiences via breaking news/outrage, then embed deeper policy arguments once you have attention.
  • “You have to be nimble enough in this media environment... bring people in and then do something I call like putting the pill in peanut butter.” (Cohen, 45:53)

7. Building Trust, Not Just Winning Fights

[50:46–53:28]

• Cohen distinguishes between performative outrage and authentic trust-building: engaging in visible fights builds audiences’ sense that a leader is on their side.
  • “It’s about proving to your audience on a daily basis that you are a trustworthy operator.” (Cohen, 51:03)
• Engaging the “outrage machine” is less about each battle, more about establishing credibility for when it counts.

8. Patriotism, Authenticity, and Generational Change

[63:34–68:29]

• Cuomo and Cohen reflect on the need for leaders who channel real-world hardship into constructive patriotism—leaders who love the country but demand more from it.
• Cohen argues it’s patriotic to insist on improvement (“we can and should do better”), while Cuomo laments Democrats ceding patriotic symbolism to Republicans.
• Both agree the next generation—shaped by being “shut out” and adverse economic realities—may supply new, authentic voices if anger is channeled virtuously.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On “Walking and Chewing Gum” in Messaging

  • “You have to be able to do both just recognizing the media environment that we’re in…to actually sound like an authentic, organic, real human being.”
    (Cohen, 04:13)

• On Media Attention and Political Reality

  • “There’s a lot of danger in ceding this ground and creating a vacuum that Republicans can then fill. Democrats have to be present.”
    (Cohen, 07:42)

• On the Party’s Appetite for Fighters

  • “This is a party that continues to age, continues to think that if you confer goodwill onto the other side, that it’ll somehow be reciprocated...It’s never been reciprocated.”
    (Cohen, 10:34)

• On Identity Politics as a Republican Weapon

  • “People get the con. ...They also understand what happens when you fall for a party focused solely on identity politics and instead don't focus on stuff that, that impacts real people.”
    (Cohen, 13:15)

• On Trust and Outrage Online

  • “It’s about building up your bonafides and proving that you can be somebody who’s worthy of trust and respect...It comes in a different form than it used to, but I think it accomplishes the same goal.”
    (Cohen, 52:10)

• On Democratic Leadership and Authenticity

  • “I think we are seeing a generation...of real, authentic, angry people that come into office and direct that anger in a virtuous way and start figuring out how D.C. can can work for regular people.”
    (Cohen, 65:23)

• On Patriotism and Critique

  • “I don't think it makes you unpatriotic to be able to acknowledge that. I think it makes you patriotic to be able to recognize that we can and should do better and that we deserve better and that America could be better.”
    (Cohen, 67:00)

---

Important Segments & Timestamps

• Overview/Democratic strategy intro: 02:52–05:06
• Debate on breaking through in media: 05:06–07:50
• Firebrands vs. system insiders: 07:50–11:12
• Identity politics as GOP attack: 11:12–14:49
• Affordability vs. clickbait messaging debate exercise: 28:18–34:02
• Deep dive on “pill in peanut butter” approach: 45:41–47:41
• Party’s future – generational change: 63:34–65:41
• Patriotism & Democrats’ missed opportunity: 65:41–69:57
• Closing reflections: 71:57–end

---

Tone & Takeaways

• The conversation is candid, sometimes combative but always respectful—typical of Cuomo’s and Cohen’s forthright styles.
• Both acknowledge the need for Democrats to master the current attention economy, but Cuomo consistently pushes for a focus on cost-of-living and policy substance.
• Cohen argues younger, more aggressive voices are needed, but policymakers also must be credible, trustworthy, and authentically invested in helping “regular people.”
• Cuomo challenges the party on patriotism, narrative, and ceding American symbolism.
• There’s palpable frustration with old leadership, a call for new blood, and recognition that the battle for trust—and for framing what it means to “fight”—is ongoing.

---

Summary for New Listeners

If you haven’t listened, this episode is a rich, substantive dialogue dissecting the Democratic Party’s strengths, vulnerabilities, and future in an era of click-driven politics and economic uncertainty. Cuomo and Cohen challenge each other, debate tactical choices, and ultimately agree that authenticity, trust, and a focus on pocketbook concerns remain key. Their frankness—and willingness to critique their own side—makes this a must-listen for anyone grappling with 2020s American politics.

Transcript

[A]

Thank you. Support comes from the Wild Alaskan Company. When was the last time you truly trusted seafood that you brought home? I know for me it's the last time I caught it, but for most of you, you have to find a trusted source for your supply. Wild Alaskan company is worth a look. They are the best way to get wild caught. Perfectly portioned, nutrient dense seafood delivered directly to your door. Trust. This is the real deal. Okay? They sent us some of the salmon. It was eaten, it was enjoyed. Okay? It came, it was packaged the right way, it was safe, it was ready to go, it was delicious. Okay? Now why does this matter? Because if you care about what you put in your body, you want the right stuff. And that's what you're going to get. 100% wild caught, never farmed. Okay, what does that mean? No antibiotics, GMOs, or additives. Just clean, real fish that support healthy oceans and fishing communities. Try it. Risk free, 100% money back guarantee. If you don't like what's in your first box, send it back. No questions asked, no risk, just high quality seafood. All right? Not all fish are the same and not all fishing is the same. Get seafood that you can trust, that's done the right way. Go to wildalaskan.com cuomo and you will get 35 bucks off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. The Democrats have figured it out. They know how to deal with clickbait, but also campaigns. How? What did they figure out? Are they right? What are the limitations? What are we going to see next? I have answers to all of those questions. I am Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. How do I have answers? Because I'm talking to somebody who is literally the tip of the spear for Democrats, who is part of reshaping the left, not just to counter maga, but to literally bring in a new era of politics in the name of the Democratic Party. His name is Brian Tyler Cohen. You want to know why millions and millions are joining an increasing, expanding following? And why he has influence and gets phone calls from so many important people? Here's why. Brian Tyler Cohen, good to see you once again. Glad to see your continued growth, your reach and your resonance, Chris.

[B]

I appreciate that, man. Thank you.

[A]

All right, so answer my question. Why isn't the left, certainly the electeds, why aren't they talking affordability all the time? Why would they talk about anything else?

[B]

I think right now it's. It's the left trying to reconcile with the fact that we have the winning formula and We've seen it used from everybody, from Abigail Spanberger and Mikey Sherrill all the way over to Zoran Mamdani. And so you have the formula. It doesn't really matter where you lie on the ideological spectrum as long as you can hammer away that message. And we've seen that on full display. It's still trying to reconcile with, with the daily deluge that Trump that, that, like, that happens, that comes when Trump is president. And, you know, if you see a scandal unfolding before your eyes, as we've seen so many times, whether it's regarding ICE and committing, you know, the atrocities that they're committing, whether it's trying to strip away health care while, whether it's, you know, seeing the cost of Thanksgiving dinner rise 50% over, over what it was in 2024, whatever it is, it's difficult to be able to ignore those things just in blind deference to affordability. And so I think, I think Democrats are or should be walking and chewing gum at the same time. So recognizing that you can and should talk about affordability, but talking about affordability relentlessly on a loop as your kind of stump speech is not going to break through in the same way that also making sure that you're covering whatever the main news of the day is is going to break through. And so you have to be able to do both just recog media environment that we're in. I mean, there's going to come a point where, you know, if you're asked for a response to the Epstein files, for example, and you can't help but pivot back to affordability, you're going to feel robotic to some degree at some point. And so it's going to be, you know, it's going to be more helpful to make sure that you can do both, that you can go on the campaign trail, talk about the things that you need to talk about that are impacting regular people's lives, but also recognizing how this media environment works and figuring out ways to break through, where you actually sound like an authentic, organic, real human being who can answer straight questions without feeling like you have to pivot to your stump speech.

[A]

I think that you can state with some confidence that that's what works for you, and it works for the clickbait crowd, which is how you get revenue and reach. But where does your confidence come from that it works for you guys winning elections?

[B]

Do you mean, do you mean the affordability stuff or the other stuff?

[A]

Well, no, my, my suggestion is that's all that will win you elections Come midterms, I'm saying right now, this eat and chew gum thing, I see the metaphor differently. I believe no one can run and pass at the same time, but unless you're playing rugby, but you guys say you can. Where does the confidence come from that playing the game the way you are is how you get to where you want to be in the midterms?

[B]

Well, I think being able to break through in this media environment is going to rely on making sure that you say something that's, that's going to be, that's going to be interesting, that is going to garner some media attention. Look, Democrats can just kind of, kind of focus solely on affordability messaging and do the whole campaign thing right now until midterms every single day. It's not going to have them break through in the same way in this media environment. And so my, my concern by virtue of doing that is, okay, you cede all of that ground to Republicans because they are going to say stuff that's going to garner media attention. And if they're the only ones garnering media attention, they're driving the narrative, then they're message breaks through. While Democrats are focusing on, on solely on affordability right now. Which, which I want to be clear, when you're campaigning, that is what we should be talking about. But until the point where, where we're doing that every single day, I think just ceding all of that media ground to Republicans who do recognize how the media works, who do recognize that you have to say stuff that's going to garner attention so that you can also, you know, get your, get on tv, get in, get in legacy media, get wherever you need to be. That, that like that's going to be important also so that you're not just completely absent in that space. You know what I'm saying?

[A]

I get it. I get the practicality of it. I'm trying to think of the strategic value of it.

[B]

Well, the strategic value, I mean, look, we have seen instances for the last 20 years where what happens when Democrats cede the narrative to Republicans is they get completely killed over it. I mean, going back to the ACA passing Democrats weren' as visible in the media and Republicans were. And by the end of this thing, you know, not only Democrats get killed in the 2010 midterms, but everybody thought that the ACA was going to usher in death panels. And so there's a lot of danger in ceding this ground and creating a vacuum that Republicans can then fill. Democrats have to be, have to be present.

[A]

Even that was about the ACA discussion and how it was framed. Here's my. Here's my curiosity about this. Okay, I totally get what you're saying, and it is right. You are right about how the media works. Now, I don't believe in the distinction between legacy and any other. There's just media. Now. The problem is we've never had this much media. And with more does not always come better. So you have more misinformation, more hate, more clickbait, more outrage than ever in the history of media because we have more of everything. Do you have more offsetting virtues as well? I don't know. But we certainly have the problems, especially in our politics. You say yeah, but we know it's working. Look at the last elections. Here's my problem with that and my concern for the left. Okay? You won what you were supposed to win, okay? In this. These are non midterm off year elections, okay? Lower turnout, although record turnout within that space. The Democrat almost always wins in New York City. Okay? Yep, he was running against another Democrat. But my brother is not what the Democratic Party wants right now. Which is why I was not a fan of his running. Mamdani is not Spanberger or Mikey Sherrill. And in my opinion, unless you are in a New York City or a San Francisco, he loses to Mikey Cheryl or Spanberger. Why? Because there's too much extreme crazy sauce. And Spanberger and Mikey Cheryl did what? We are of the system. Military, CIA. Right? All the boogeymen. But what? We're reasonable, we're righteous, but we're not radical. And we know how to do the job. That's Spanberger, that's Mikey Cheryl. You won the seats you were supposed to win, but you did it two different ways. One is we're the angry ones now. That's Mamdani. We are outrage. We are populist furor. The other way was we know how to do what has to be done. And I have an impressive pedigree. Which are you?

[B]

Look, I think that we need to do both, frankly. I think that there's an appetite in the blue bastions to run firebrands who are going to fight fire with fire. Look, I'm certainly of the persuasion that Democrats have long have for far too long been the party of strongly worded letters. And I mean, it's. You know, this is a party that continues to age, continues to think that if you confer goodwill onto the other side that it'll somehow be reciprocated. And that's been my entire life. And guess What? It's never been reciprocated. And so there's a lot of hunger on the left for people who are actually going to fight, who are going to recognize the urgency of the moment that we're in and not think that the response to this is just going to be, you know, either A, a strongly worded letter or B, offer up deference to the other side, offer up compromise to the other side, and that somehow we will, that will, everybody will meet in the midd middle and it'll be harmony.

[A]

But if I want to fight because your tax policy, your tariff policy, everything about your policies sucks, that's the fight I want to have. The way you do things sucks. And now you're saddling me with. I got to defend the word socialist. I got to wade through that. And I have to do that without offending people in my party who are smart enough to know that Medicare and Medicaid and public education and a lot of other aspects of policy are socialistic. So I can't pretend to be stupid, but I have to deal with that. And now I have to deal with this bubbling intolerance of type, which is, you guys used to be everybody's gotta be allowed in and you gotta be nice to everybody, no matter what they call themselves or how they act. Now it's except the Jews. And we're gonna be a little deferential to the angry brown cause, and that's at the expense of the Jews. Why does a Democrat having to run have to own these things?

[B]

Look, I actually think that you don't right now. And I think that there is an overly. I think that there is a focus on the right, on trying to, to do that to the left. But we've already been through an entire election cycle where the right tried to make the entire cycle a referendum on some specific marginalized group or, or some, you know, identity politics, something. And they fell for it in 2024. And look at the governance that's been ushered in. I mean, they ran an entire campaign predicated on, on your transgender reassignment surgeries in prison. And what that got us, what that got this Republican base, is a bunch of lies from an administration that has no interest in following through on their promises. There is no Epstein files released. There's no lower cost, there's no lower inflation, there's no free ivf, there's no protecting earned benefits. And instead you've got a president who is enshrouding the Oval Office in gold, who's building himself, himself a $350 million ballroom, who's buying a couple of Gulfstream jets to the tune of $172 million, who is hosting, you know, let them eat cake parties at Mar a Lago. And so people get the con. And they also understand what happens when you fall for a party focused solely on identity politics and instead don't focus on stuff that, that impacts real people. So they've already sold that once. I don't think it's going to work again in 2026 or 2028. So Republicans can try to run an entire election cycle where they do that whole shtick again and pretend that, oh, you know, the, the Democrats of the party that hates this people or this people or they're intolerant here or there. And, you know, we have to make this whole thing a big referendum on, on skin color or sexual orientation or whatever it may be. But the fact of the matter is people fell for that once and they're not going to fall for it on behalf of the Republicans again. And so Republicans run that playbook at their own peril. Because right now we've got Democrats who from the entire spectrum, spanning Mamdani over to Spanberger, are running an affordability playbook regardless of where they lie on the ideological spectrum. And, you know, from all of the elections that we saw previous, prior to this past election, you know, the Tuesday's election day, Democrats were overperforming by 11, 12, 13 points. You know, on Tuesday, we saw Democrats winning. November 4th, we saw Democrats winning by 25 points statewide in Georgia, we saw Democrats winning by, you know, double digits in Pennsylvania for the state supreme retention race. And so these are not close races. Yes, Democrats did win where they're supposed to win, but they're not supposed to win. Statewide in Georgia.

[A]

Support for the Crisp Cuomo project comes from Masa. Now, I gotta be honest. I dig these, okay? And I'm not just saying it. I'll tell you why. Masa is a real trip. And I gotta be honest, they didn't come to me. My wife found them. Why? She's an integrative nutritionist, runs this business called Purist, and she's all about what's in your food. And this bag has the following ingredients on it. Organic blue corn, 100% grass fed beef tallow, sea salt. Match your bag. Tomas's bag. Match it. You can. You're gonna see stuff on the back of that package you never wanted to see and that you don't even know. That's why I love it. The taste is there, the sturdiness. Of the chip. Great for dipping. I'm a double dipper. That's right. And these work very well. I just happen to eat them a bag at a time. They are part at Masa, of the growing movement to bring back real food. They don't only avoid all the bad stuff. They're great. They taste great. I'm telling you, I could eat this whole bag, not even think twice about it. Except you wouldn't be able to understand what I'm saying because it's a real chip, which means it doesn't break down. I mean, come on, man. Crunchy goodness right there. If you love Masa, you're also going to love their sister company, Vandy Crisps, again, potato chips. But without, you know, this whole science lesson on the back of the package. Three ingredients. Are you ready to give Masa or Vandy a try? If you use the code Cuomo, you're going to get 25% off your first order at masdhips.com or Vandy Chips masachips.com or Vandy crisps.com chips versus crisps. Simply click the link in the video description or scan the QR code and you can claim this delicious offer. Now, let's say you don't want to order online. That's cool. They're coming to more and more markets. They're in Sprouts stores wherever you are. And you can stop by there and get a couple of bags before they're gone. I get what you're saying. You gotta play every day where the ball is. I just have. I have concerns about it and I wanna do a little exercise with you. But first I wanna compliment you. So you helped me realize something about myself that I was misperceiving.

[B]

And is it the ability to grow a nice.

[A]

Listen, Brian, I would love to. I wish you were here in person right now so I could choke you like a chicken, but you are so right. There is nothing about you that is more superior over me than your facial hair. I want you to know that. And it bothers me. It bothers me more than you think it does. I am such a poor excuse for an Italian male. It kills me. But it's Movember. I'm doing it with the brothers at the firehouse to raise money for men's cancer research. So I'm doing it. But it is humbling on multiple levels. You're right. So you did teach me that. I'll add a second thing. I actually engage in violence on a regular basis. Right. I am a student and a user of self defense. Combatives. I do it all the time. What that has taught me is something that has hindered my analysis of. You're tapping into outrage and wanting what you call fighting. Okay? And at first I was like, this is all. This is all heat, no light, and Brian and these guys are just acting like what they used to oppose. And it's. They're just yappers now and they're just. Here's what I was missing in my world. Okay? I see. Talking of any kind, if you're saying, I'm gonna grab your little mousy mustache and rip it out, we're still talking. We are not violent with each other. Yet I have time, I have opportunity. And I don't really perceive you as a threat because threats don't talk. Threats act. That's my mindset. One of the reasons I'm so comfortable in confrontational conversation is to me, it's not really confrontational. We're still talking. Some of it's the legal training, some of it's all the years of debate, but dispositionally, anything that's making noise towards me doesn't threaten me in any way. And I allowed that to bleed into my political analysis that, hey man, if I'm gonna take you out, Brian, you're gonna know cuz you're gonna wake up in the hospital. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a talk contest. Talking is part of the contest. So if you're angry and you wanna to resist with your mouth as much as with your votes and your ideas and everything else, you are correct. I was incorrect in my waiting. W E I G H T I N G so yes, you do. Must. You must participate in the fray. You must. It is the state of play. Here's my question about it. Now that I agree with you. I agree you have to be more active. You cannot just talk the right talk all the time and be deferential. You can't. You'll lose the narrative, you'll lose the energy. You're right. Okay, so how. Okay, now we're back and we're one step away from trying something. That step is, do you go wherever it is in the moment? Right now, I would say the left says yes. That's what bothered me about Epstein. Epstein has never been about, in my opinion, my opinion about vindicating the victims. Never. It has never been about that. Not when Acosta cut Epstein that shitty deal because of whoever. That's the one question that I have always been asking. But that's if I were in politics, it's all I'd be saying. Who told Acosta to give him the deal? Who told Acosta to give him the deal? That was during George W. Bush. Who did it? Who wanted it? Is it Cheney? And he's dead now. If I were you, I'd lay it off on him, you know, so that one question started it all. Because Epstein's never been about the survivors. Nothing about it was handled the right way from the survivors perspective. MAGA made it a boogeyman. It's the Clintons, it's Pizzagate, it's Deep State. It's all the people that you hate that you believe. Donald Trump knows, but he hates them too. And they were full of shit. Cash, Patel, Bongino get put into positions of power to deliver on exactly what they were selling on podcasts. And they totally basically say they were lying by omission. Then the left picks it up and decides to make it a boogeyman of their own. Not only is it not a righteous cause, and every time Ro Khanna says it's about the survivors whom he just met, it bothers me. And I like Ro Khanna and I believe he is a present and future leader for the left and I think he is a fair broker. But I feel that this is you guys at your worst. And maybe MAGA at its best, by the way, but it is you tapping in to what pisses off the majority least. And that's why I didn't understand it as a play. What am I missing?

[B]

Look, I think, I think, you know, I subscribe to the Dan Pfeiffer school of politics, where you focus on issues that unite your party and divide the other party as a raw political issue. This is exactly that. This is. Everybody on the left is united in two things. And these are the two things that I always bring up, which is accountability for the people who perpetuated these crimes and transparency on behalf of the. Of the survivors who were the victims of these crimes. But this is also an issue that divides. Divides the right. And so it makes sense as a political issue. It makes sense as a moral issue. And frankly, it's an issue that Republicans ushered in in the first place. Democrats weren't talking about this issue. Yes, and.

[A]

But that's where you're vulnerable. You are Right up until that. But I'll say, then where were you during Biden? Oh, Ghislaine Maxwell's investigation was going on. That's Poppy talk. Two. That's not two things.

[B]

Two things. I mean, I mean, one thing is there was an ongoing investigation until 2021, appealed until 2025. So, so they weren't going to, I mean, that's just how it was like prior to the weaponized DOJ in the Trump era, there wasn't a world where you would just say release the Epstein files of an ongoing investigation wasn't going to happen. You can, you can yell it into the ether. Merrick Garland wasn't going to do anything about it. Or any attorney general wasn't going to do anything about it. But, but let's say that they could. Let's say that I agree that those fil released. That was up to the, that was up to one person. It was the Attorney General. And there was, there used to be a separation of church and state between the President and the Attorney General. Republicans even abided by that when they clutched their pearls over this five minute Bill Clinton, Loretta lynch meeting when Bill Clinton wasn't even President anymore. All of that notwithstanding, it relied solely on Merrick Garland being able to release these files. You think that that guy, the most circumspect, judicious, don't want to, you know, offer up any optics of politic that Attorney General was going to do anything to broach that, that contract that he made with himself in the country.

[A]

I don't think he was as independent as you are suggesting. And we saw that because he kept appointing special prosecutors to do things that he could have just denied.

[B]

He waited two years to even start investigating Donald Trump for preventing the certification of a free and fair election. The greatest crime against democracy this country has seen in 250 years. The attorney General, the guy who's supposed to operate without fear or favor, the fucking Attorney General, the top law enforcement official in the United States could not open investigation into Donald Trump without appointing a special prosecutor because he was so fucking focused on offering up the optics of politicization. And so he has to wait two years before he appoints anybody. That's his job. Just like Trump wasn't even a candidate at that point, but he was so scared of offering up those optics, those poor optics, that he waited, sat in his hands, finally deigned to allow a special prosecutor to come in. And by then, by that time, you know, whether, whether it's because there wasn't enough time or because our, our judicial system isn't set up for somebody who is going to abuse it to the extent that Trump did. Nothing ends up happening.

[A]

Even if you are right about your premise about Merrick Garland, I still think you're using him as a scapegoat in this way. The, the, the straw man argument here is there was an ongoing investigation with Ghislaine Maxwell. Forget about the fact that, that I have, in my experience as an attorney, but also as a journalist, had plenty leaked to me whenever they want, whenever it is advantageous. And we've certainly seen that. Let's put that to the side. I'm not saying that because there was an ongoing investigation, they wouldn't release all the files. Nobody's saying that. I'm saying Ro Khanna, during the Ghislaine Maxwell investigation, could have said, hey, what about these 20 names? Hey, what about these other people? Is that being investigated? And they would have had to answer. Now, were any of those people part of the Maxwell investigation? No. Was she ever asked through counsel about any of them? Yes. And did she say she had information to offer? No. Which to me, by the way, has always been the end of the analysis. Because there is nobody who's not in the mobile and even they are a bunch of rats, to be honest, who is not going to save themselves by saying anything they can. So to me, it was always the end of the analysis. What I'm saying is they could have been calling for these other aspects to be investigated and to come out, and they didn't because they didn't see advantage in it. And now they do. Here's the exercise I want to do with ubtc. I want to play one Democrat at and you play another. Okay? And we are in a primary against one another. And I am going to. You use whatever issues you think are important. I'm only on affordability because I see it so much more broadly than you guys are defining it right now. Okay. And I don't even know why you changed the word. I would have stuck with cost of living. But I'll give it to you. I'll go affordability. You bring up any issue that you think will matter in the midterms politically, and I will counter with only affordability, and we'll just see where it goes. Not in a gotcha way. I'm just telling you how powerful I think this issue is for the biggest cross section of Americans that any party could ever wanna access. So you're running against me as a Democrat. I say I don't care about Epstein, I don't care about Trump's authoritarian ways, I don't care about maga, I don't care about any of those things. I think they're irrelevant to the majority of American people. And you say we're on the debate stage it's me or you. We're splitting the vote.

[B]

But you're saying I can't talk about affordability.

[A]

You can talk about it. But I'm saying my opponent, who's got amazing facial hair, is an outsider, is refreshing. I like him in a way I don't even like myself. But this cat is doing what MAGA did to us. He chases every shiny fucking thing that he can use to play the clickbait game. And it's great for his podcast. It's not great for the country. Put me in a position of leadership.

[B]

Look, I think that we have seen the extent to which full Republican governance. There are no Democrats in office, no Democrats leading the House, the Senate, the White House. This is what full Republican governance. Governance has wrought onto us. And these people have run on a platform of a populous platform where they're focusing, you know, they're promising lower housing, lower rent, lower groceries, lower eggs, and instead full Republican governance. Cult of personality around Donald Trump has ushered in Donald Trump's sole focus on, on surrounding himself with gold and opulence, buying jets that taxpayers are paying for, buying gold, leafing in the Oval Office, the taxpayers are paying for hosting lavish parties, lowering their tax rate only for Trump and his donors and his rich billionaire friends. And we have no Republicans in office because they are of the God king who are lifting a single finger to do that. And so we need people in office who are actually going to focus on regular people, not blind deference to, you know, an autocratic leader in Donald Trump because they're too chicken shit to, to push back against somebody who they fear might send out a mean tweet and get them a primary challenger.

[A]

I agree with my better looking, younger and more likable opponents opponent about the problem. However, he is forgetting to include that he and his kind within my party are part of that problem. Because while you are right in your diagnosis, you are obsessed with Trump sucks. And that is why we keep losing to them. Because the American people, literally at a margin that we have never seen before, rejected us in favor of, of this fucking shitty MAGA situation. Because we have been relentlessly against, against, against, instead of what we can do better than these people, and what we can do better than these people is fix their costs of living. And we start with regulating the insurance companies. And we start regulating the insurance companies by rejecting their lobbyist money with yes, my party has taken more of, of and it is a shame. And it ends with me and it ends today. And I will take on the insurance companies and I will Remove all the tariffs and I will restructure with the majority that we will have how taxation works and the responsibilities put on corporations for their tax cuts. I am not Bernie Sanders. I am not going to yell at the rich because I want to be rich. What I'm going to say is, is if you want the breaks I give you as a rich person, as a company, you're going to do certain things. That is capitalism. We pick winners and losers. It's what we do. It is not socialism. I reject my opponent and his socialist pals. I reject them with their angry rhetoric of hating everything. I can get it done. Not Trump sucks. Not. They don't do anything. Not maga's stupid. I have ideas to fix. I just laid them out more in 47 seconds than the whole other half of the party has in 47 months wants.

[B]

Look, I, I don't think that any of those things are wrong. I also think that in.

[A]

Why don't you talk about them? You bury me in Epstein, you bury me in investigations of Trump. If you guys had investigated the insurance industry the way you investigated him, we might not have the problem with the subsidies right now.

[B]

Yeah, well, I think, I think, look, I think in terms of talking about this stuff, there's a time and a place recognizing the media environment that we live in. You and I both know that if you're talking about, you know, if you're basically doing an iteration of a stump speech when the news cycle is focused on Epstein, then you're, then you're losing that ground.

[A]

But I don't want to give you the cycle. Look at what I have to talk about today. Mark Kelly getting dragged back in. Yeah, it's a distraction. That's not treasonous. Did I like their video? No, I didn't like their video, but that's, that's a distraction. I'm not going to talk to you about Mark Kelly because it's bullshit. Yeah.

[B]

Let me offer it to you this way. We don't live in a media environment anymore where you can watch a 30 second ad in between quarters of a football game in October of an election year and make up your mind that way. You and I both know that it doesn't work like that anymore.

[A]

You are right.

[B]

People create, people create their political ideologies over the course of years, listening to podcasts, media personalities, influencers, content creators, thought leaders over the, you know, hours per day, and they'll sit down and they create parasocial relationships with these people. And it's, it's forged in, in those Conversations that people decide where they lie on the ideological spectrum. And, and so this notion that you can just, you know, throw a 15 second ad on TV in September or October and persuade people that way is so, is so outside the realm of reality. And so recognizing that that's how people build up their ideologies which then present themselves, which then into votes for your party or the other party come November. You have to fight those battles on a daily basis. You have to be able to talk about Mark Kelly and the reaction to.

[A]

Two Democrats saying but how you talk about it matters. And how you.

[B]

Of course, of course how you talk about it matters.

[A]

And you are over sampling the social media crowd, which is still not the majority of this country. Remember why Trump lost to Biden? Trump lost to Biden. Was there fatigue? There was fatigue of everything. We were coming out of the pandemic. But why America go for a guy who had never been a compelling choice for president ever? Well, because it was a basis of comparison against someone that they what someone that they what someone they had just seen fail at the fundamental job. Not Trump sucks. Not. I'm sick of how he talks. That was all secondary. They voted for a guy who wasn't known for talking so good, was not known for integrity, was not known for anything really. But being Obama's boy when he wasn't opening his mouth and fucking things up for Obama, who had a hard luck personal story that was really heart rending and compelling, that's what he was known as. And because of how Trump fucked up the job, he lost. That is the space that is available once again going into the midterms. The job is the cost of living. And if I believe there's an opportunity to do what Brian says, you must. And Brian is right. I hate that he is right. Not because I don't want him to be right, I'm a huge fan. But I hate that it's true about us, which is I have to talk about the fake accounts in social media and the number and the, and the proclivity towards them and why. Okay, I'll talk about that. It actually works for me. But I'll talk about whatever is in the zeitgeist in that moment. Fine. But how I'm going to do it is in a constant reminder of what the job is. And as frustrating as it is, and as much as I didn't like when Michelle Obama said it, it is the American way that when you try to kick me in the nuts, I don't kick you in the nuts back. I make you miss and then I knock you the fuck out. I believe that that is the new version of they go low, we go high. I don't think it's. We got you on Epstein now. I don't think that connects you to the majority the way you were bullshit about Epstein. We exposed it. We're gonna make it happen now. But that's not our thing. Our thing is you're a complete fucking fraud and you put tariffs on that are killing small businesses in America. And we are obsessed with small businesses. That's all I care about is small businesses. From Brian Tyler Cohen to the guy who's making belt buckles that say American. I am obsessed with those people. And we know how to help them. And here's a bunch of ideas because you guys suck at ideas. I think that's the sweet space, that's the melding, and I don't see it yet. I see guys going the other way. Ro Khanna, who's an idea factory, becoming Mr. Epstein.

[B]

Look, I think first of all, in the content that I do, I do try to bring it back to that. At the end of the day, no matter what it is, it is, you know, it is focusing on the fact that whether it was the Epstein stuff, whether it was, you know, whether it's, you know, more gold in the Oval Office, whatever it is, it is the fact that that's where Trump's focus is on, or that's what he's focused on burying as opposed to the things he promised you, which were lower costs, lower housing, lower groceries, lower eggs. Didn't do any of that stuff. Instead, he is, you know, focused on and filling his. His rooms with more opulence.

[A]

How do you bring the eggs down? How do you bring the cost down?

[B]

And I think that's going to be. I think that's going to be. The main thing is, as we get closer and closer, is. Is making sure that it's not just. And look, that's. Which, by the way, is not to say that you can't get a lot of mileage out of pointing out the fact that the other side is. Is failing. And that's really what. That's what these election cycles are most of the time.

[A]

Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from Lisa. Sleep matters. You know what you have to do if you want to sleep well, you got to sleep on something good. Okay. Do you know where your mattress comes from? Do you know what kind of mattress you have? That's your problem. Go to Leesa L E E S A. Okay? You have to make sure that your mattress works, they have a lineup of beautifully crafted mattresses tailored to how you you sleep. What does that mean? What kind of position you're in, what your size is, how much you move. All of these things are relevant. They're relevant to design, and Leesa knows that. Okay? If you are sleeping on a right surface for you, you're going to feel it the next morning and you're going to sleep better and differently. Leesa mattresses are meticulously designed and assembled in the usa, which is a growing thing for me, okay? I want things that are made here. I want Americans to be getting a chance to have what they need and to have what they're doing respected by other Americans. I buy USA whenever I get a chance. Leesa mattresses are designed and assembled in the usa, okay? And they back it up with free shipping, easy returns, and a 120 night sleep trial. I mean, I don't know how you, you beat that. You get to have the mattress for four months. You decide you don't like it, you can give it back. I don't think you're going to do that, but wow. Leesa has been tested and awarded best hybrid mattresses by the New York Times wire cutter and is exclusively featured by West Elm as their go to mattress partner. So go to leesa.com, that's L E E S A dot com, okay? And you'll get an extra 50 bucks off if, if, if you use the promo code. Code Cuomo exclusive for my listeners. L-E-E-S-A.com use the code CUOMO and they're going to say, hey, where'd you hear from us? Tell them Cuomo sent me. And Doug. Here we have the Limu Emu in its natural habitat, helping people customize their car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual. Fascinating. It's accompanied by his natural ally, Doug. Uh, limu is that guy with the binoculars watching us. Cut the camera. They see us.

[B]

Only pay for what you [e-mail] Liberty, Liberty, Liberty. Liberty Savings variant by Liberty Mutual Insurance.

[A]

Company and affiliates, excludes Massachusetts. Eric Swalwell said the other day, you better get a good lawyer and you better be ready, because when we have the majority, you're going to be right back here and you're going to be answering inquiry. I'm telling you, I know this as much as I know that this mustache isn't working for me. Lawfare is dead. It only moves the needle with the people who were never going to vote for the other side Anyway, the. The rest of us don't believe it leads anywhere.

[B]

You need both. You need something. Here's what I think. I think you need something for a very demoralized base. These are true blue Democratic voters who have watched the Democratic Democratic Party brand suffer so much by virtue of its fecklessness and impotence. And I think that you need to give those people something as well.

[A]

All right, here's what I'm going to give them. Here's what I'm going to give them. I'm going to give them exactly what you want me to feed them. But it's going to be. I don't know the right metaphor, but it's going to be different. But it's going to be the same. Here's what I'm going to do. I am not flaying any MAGA folks or members of this administration unless I have to. Unless we're talking about a felony. Okay, then. Okay, here's who I'm going to do it to. The Campbell's soup guy who admitted that their ingredients suck. And they don't. They don't really care because it's mostly poor people who buy their soup. Yeah, that's who I'm coming for. That's my law fair. My law fair are the people who benefit. See, it's what AOC and Bernie have always missed. For me, it's all, you know, hate the rich. Hate the rich is not what I'm talking about.

[B]

I think Bernie's been really effective at, you know, kind of. I mean, look, Bernie. Bernie certainly is at no loss for criticism against the Democratic Party more broadly. He has been. He has been very on message in terms of recognizing who the villains are. And, you know, and so I.

[A]

But everybody knows who the villains are. Make healthcare a universal human right. What does that do? Let's say you have a universal right, whatever that means. By the way, let's say you have a right. Let's say we were to put it in the Constitution. You have a right to health care. You think that changes our problem? No. The reason they went after access in the aca, you know, because I lived it. And this is something for you guys to remember, do homework on and realize when you get in, hopefully three phases from now of when we're talking about, well, what are we actually going to do? And now we have power to do it. The ACA went after affordability because the industry and all of the tentacles would have crushed Obama if he went after affordability. So it was about access, even though it's called the Affordable Care Act. It should have been called the Accessible Care act because that was the only give was, okay, fine, we'll find a way to cover more people, but don't fuck with our cost structure. Structure, which they really didn't. Why? Because even then, even with the cram down votes, necessary that you, you know, you had it. He had it. Which is why he got it done. The industry wouldn't have gone for it. So what? That's how it is? No, no, no. They give you too much money. They lead the lobbying effort and Democrats take more than Republicans. Oh, and oh yeah, they're a top five employer in almost all of the important swing districts. Oh, and oh yeah, all the providers are only open because of how the insurers allow them to operate. So they'll close them down down and you'll have less access. Oh, and oh yeah, you have allowed too much of our financial world to create instruments off this industry. So they were all against the change, and that's why it didn't change. So Bernie says, make it a right. Okay, fine, it's a right. How do we pay for it? We're still in the same place. This is what's always bothered me. I love Bernie. I was one of the first to push him to be into the presidential conversation. It's true. You can go back and find it on cnn. Same thing with aoc. Aoc. I'm not anti aoc. I go after her because I expect better. She's got this huge following. She has charisma. She has authenticity of being a real disruptor. Fight the righteous fucking fight. Go after the insurance companies and figure out how to change the model from only working for them to working as much for who they're supposed to be covering as it works for them. That's the fight. I don't want it to be a right. I don't care if it's a right. If it's a right, it doesn't make the system right. The system's still fucked. Whether it's a right or not, you got to figure out how to do it. And now, Brian, I know why we don't have that conversation. It's fucking boring. I'm bored. It's coming out of my mouth right now, and I'm bored. And there's no easy answer and there's no quick gotcha. And it doesn't make me look better than you. Real easy. But when you surrender to those truths, right? And everything I just said is true about the limitations, you're now fighting a Game I don't think you guys are as good at.

[B]

I think, I think we have to be able to do both. I think we have to be able to recognize how to capture attention in an attention economy by talking, by, by news surfing, basically, which is basically to focus on what is in the news today. You know, bring people in and then do something I call like putting, putting the pill in peanut butter, which is people that come to my videos will come watch my videos because I am focused on some breaking some iteration of breaking news. But, but then there's more deep seated issues that I'm focused on. I mean I've been focused on Medicare for all for God knows how many years, focused on, on combating climate change for God knows how many years. So, so there are policy positions that I think that I think we need to be able to sell, but to do it in a way that's, you know, to operate in a way that's dynamic enough to optimize in a media environment where it's all about attention. So you can do both. You have to be able to do both. You know, you know, you have to be able to answer a question about what's going on in this news cycle right now to be able to break through with that answer so that you can actually garner some attention for people. Because once you have eyeballs, once you have eyeballs and you have ears from people, then they're a captive audience so that you can bring them in on whatever other broader ideas, maybe the less sexy stuff. You know, I never start my videos with like, here's why it's important that we have single payer healthcare system in the United States. States. Because I know how the media environment works. I know that by the time those words have left my mouth, 95% of my audience will be gone so they can hear some crazy shit about whatever's on fire in Washington D.C. today. So instead you have to, you, you have to be nimble enough in this media environment where you have your ideas and I have, you know, things that I would like to see. We need justice reform, we need election reform. We need election day to be a national holiday. We need automatic voter registration. We need, we need single payer healthcare. We need real efforts to combat climate change in this country. And it has to be a global effort to do it like you know, brimming with this stuff. But you, but I don't lead with it because that's not how the media environment works.

[A]

I believe everything you're saying is right. Okay, but how right meaning what Context, you're right. But now, so what do we have now? We have your most popular people in your party. Party are not your best operators, are not your best leaders and don't have an impressive track record when they are in power. Why? Well, take aoc, okay? AOC is great at what you're talking about right now. She does not have her name on a single piece of meaningful legislation. She's been in there a while, by the way. She's been in power, okay, For a while also. She's not right now.

[B]

Duh.

[A]

But I'll tell you what, she's better out of power than when she's in power. Let's be honest. Even when she does her questioning, I got. It's one of the only times I've seen somebody get owned in an immigration conversation with a MAGA person. If you can't win that, you know, if you're actually going to sit across from Tom Holman and lose, you know, why did you lose? Because she doesn't know that it is actually a crime. Crime to end. Yeah, it's a misdemeanor, but it's crime. You got to know your. Because now it's over before it started. But why is she your most popular person? Because Brian Tyler Cohen is right. That's right. Because you're right. And she is responsive to the outrage machine, which is what our media has become because the social media barons have made it that. But does that make her more likely to win a big office? See, I think that's the big question mark right now is that once you go from what dominates the list of what's trending on my phone to what's going to be trending on election day when you see the results, I think that there's a question mark there that we are not all social media warriors. We are not all the majority of people in this country are not. Are more and more people. People. Yes, But I don't know that that's a good thing, by the way. But I think the reason Trump lost, I think the reason that you guys had margins in these off year elections is because there's something more than the clickbait that resonates. And you've got people angry, you've got them resentful, you've got them not trusting the systems of government anymore, you've got them desperate for disruption, corruption, you've got them that's where you wanted them, you've got them there. What do you do with them now?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And not you, not you as an influencer. You're doing the right thing. Even more than I realized when I first fell in love with you. You're even more lovable as a factor of what your party needs than I even thought you were when I first started thinking I liked you. So I agree with you more than I ever have. Have. But how do you make that transition from just doing what they do well to what the majority needs you to do well?

[B]

Yeah, well, I think. I think it's two things. I think responding to the outrage machine is important, not because you're succumbing to the media environment or, or, or, you know, what the. The tech oligarchs who are, you know, operating their strings from behind the scenes want us to do. There is a degree of that, but I also think that it's most important, trust with your audience. Like, it's not about Epstein at the end of the day. It's not about how you respond to the insurance companies at the end of the day. I think it's about proving to your audience on a daily basis that you are a trustworthy operator. So engaging in these fights, you're right, may. May not move the needle at all. You may just be talking to the same people or the same cohort of people over and over and over again. But in taking on these fights and, and dying on the hills that you think it's important die on and putting, you know, your message out there, you're building trust with an audience that knows, okay, now this is somebody who I know can be an adept voice that can speak on my behalf and, and. And give them more trust to operate, you know, in Washington doing whatever it is needs that needs to be done. So it's not about these small battles. I don't think that you're necessarily burning political capital by fighting these fights. I think you're just showing an audience, an increasingly large audience, a growing audience, who you are. And I think that counts for a lot. I mean, look, like I said before, think about how much money is often spent in these elections on these September, October of an election year, ads that go in one ear and out the other. This is just replacing that. This is showing an audience that is much more keyed in online, that has much more access to these politicians who you are. You're not doing it in September, October, and it's not costing all of your money in September or October. It's spending time and resources and energy doing it all year round to a different degree, but you're still doing the same thing. You're still showing the audience who you are and that you are, that you're going to be a fighter on their behalf. And so I think it's, again, it's not about the specific fights. It's about building up, building up your bonafides and proving that you can be somebody who's worthy of trust and respect. And I think that it comes in a different form than it used to, but I think it accomplishes the same goal. So I get what you're saying in the sense that, like, this is where everybody's burning their political capital on these dumb fucking daily fights. But I think it's bigger than that. I think it's. It's showing audiences who you are so that they're not just trying to convey that sense. In September or October, in a 15 second ad.

[A]

Support for the Chris Cuomo project comes from AG1. Look, you know my deal. I'm one done. I am all about fighting, fighting the good fight. And when that comes to fitness, wellness, you got to put the right stuff in. And AG1 makes it so simple. You're just one and done. I take one scoop in the morning, bink into some warm water I drink it tastes great, but more importantly, it's filled with great things, right? It's not just the multivitamin, it's the pre and probiotics, it's the superfoods, it's the antioxidants, it's the adaptogens. It's all there. It's all in one scoop. And they did the science, so. So it's not only in a more readily digestible and accessible form for your body, certainly more than a pill, but I don't have all the different bottles anymore, all right? I already got enough of those for medicines. When it comes to, like, you know, my supplements, the simpler the better, okay? And this is very key, especially this time of year, guys, if there is a time to get into your supplements and AG1 specifically, this is the time. Because this is the time you get sick. This is when you have to make sure your body has everything it needs to deal with. Deal with the cold and the viruses and everything that brings down your immune system, okay? AG1 next gen, really helps make a difference. It contains more vitamins and minerals than ever before. Why? Because they keep upgrading their formula, right? That's science. You learn as you go. And AG1 next gen, is clinically shown to fill common nutrient gaps. Okay? Okay? And that is a very key thing for me, and I hope it is for you as well. And you make it such an easy part of your daily routine. AG1 is now making it even easier. They have their best offer ever. If you head to drinkag1.com CCP for the Chris Cuomo project, you're going to get the welcome kit, a morning person hat. That's nice. A bottle of vitamin D3K2, and an AG1 flavor sampler. And you're going to get to try their new sleep supplement, which is big in my house. Agz for free. Game changer. So in the morning, AG1Bink. At night, Agz Bink helps me get up, get ready for the day, helps me wind down, go to sleep to get ready for tomorrow. That's drinkag1.com CCP. You'll get 126 bucks in free cash gifts for new subscribers.

[C]

Take the next 30 seconds to invest in yourself with Vanguard. Breathe in. Center your mind. Recognize the power you have to direct your financial future. Feel the freedom that comes with reaching your goals and building a life you love. Vanguard brings you this meditation because we invest where it matters most in you. Visit vanguard.com investinginyou to learn more. All investing is subject to risk.

[A]

I'm totally with you with the ads. I'm totally with you with the media saturation. I'm now totally with you in the. You can't avoid the fray. And, you know, I know that it's funny because people see me as a fucking flamethrower, which has never been the case. And it's not because I don't like to fight. Love to fight. I, I, I literally, I love it. I'll, I can debate anything all day, especially with the level of debate that passes for debate these days.

[B]

Chris, you, you know that I, I think I told you this on, on our last conversation. I almost went to, to law school because I would watch you on CNN in, like, 2017 and 2018, and I was like, the way to be an effective communicator, the way to be an effective fighter is, you know, to have the law on your side. And I would watch you, and I was like, I think I'm gonna go to law school.

[A]

So.

[B]

You almost sent me to law school.

[A]

Well, I wouldn't want, want to be a lawyer, man. Is that, is that a tough process? And also, that's not why I am so devoted or conditioned by Socratic dialogue. It's how I was raised. I was raised in a really weird, but by today's standards way, and not just generationally, because I'm Gen X, but profoundly Italian. Queens neighborhood. Okay? The names on the block were Cuomo, Capalongo which means long head. Although if you said that to their face, you better have your hands up. Squadiri testani fabuza. Okay? That was my block, okay?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Rapid fig trees. Everybody was first generation there. Their kids were second generation. Me, my father was a fucking genius, okay? He was an angry, anti elitist, anti wasp, okay? Ethnic, angry, disenfranchised, okay? He also was so hard. Hard. He did not believe in emotional intelligence. So you would say, daddy, you called me fat. You hurt my feelings. And he'd say, are you fat or not? Well, mom says I'm husky. You're fat. You know you're fat. That's why they make you a lineman when you should be carrying the ball. Because I was the fastest guy recruited into baseball when they made me a pro baseball player at 17. Your brother runs like the wind. Every one of your sisters is fast. You're fat. Oh, you hurt my feelings. You have no right to be upset. That's how I was raised. So the Socratic dialogue was very natural to me. It wasn't law school. It just made law school easier. Right?

[B]

Is correlation not causing what happens is.

[A]

And what is necessary in this environment now why it's so easy for me? I honestly believe you could give me any position right now and. And I'll have solid arguments instantaneously because that's all I do is study. And I study in a way that very few people do in digital media today. I study what I don't agree with all day long. I study what I'm not a fan of, what doesn't make sense to me. And on real things like what. How is what. What these people call pro life? How is that a thing for them? Where do they find it in their Christian understanding? You know, I just. I just finished reading this stuff that my wife gave me, who's a nutritionist, and she's really into the spiritual world. When. If there is such a thing as a soul, okay, which you have to believe if you're a Christian. So if you're a Christian, you have to believe that there's such thing called a soul, okay? So you check both those but boxes. When does a soul enter the human body? There's a whole body of knowledge surrounding that. Now, do I believe and there's a soul? Well, that's my business. But let me tell you, if there's a gun to my head right now, I'll give you a guess what my answer is going to be. But I read it. Why? I got to understand. I got to understand these people who Believe what they believe about guns, about tyranny of government, about what they think about justice, about what they think about the environment. I have to understand what they think about the vaccines. Where does it come from? I. I have to understand. I got to read. I got to read. And it has helped me a lot in ways that I don't often get to demonstrate, because nobody's looking for equilibrium. Nobody wants to hear me tell them why the people who they have decided to hate believe what they believe.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I think it's. I know it's an opportunity. I know that the country doesn't stay this way. I know it doesn't like even when I watch. And it's not about naming names because I don't want to play into the clickbait culture in a counterproductive way. I'm watching people succeed who I know know that they are succeeding in the wrong way. I even believe that's true of Tucker Carlson, by the way. And I believe he just took the step he's going to regret. And it's not playing with anti SEM Semitism, playing with Fuentes. Him saying, the Republicans suck and I'm coming against them, which is his new line, was a mistake. He will never have a home with you guys. You guys do not take convenient allies the way the Trump culture will. You will not take a guy like him because he agrees with you about whatever it is in that moment that matters. He thinks you are. He thinks you will, and he's making a mistake.

[B]

He has a lot to learn about purity testing on the left.

[A]

Then. Yes, he does. I can't tell you how often people in your generation say to me, I don't understand what the Democratic Party's about. I don't understand what the Democratic Party. I. The guy who was raised with Teddy Kennedy, with Jesse Jackson, with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, with Bill Clinton. Clinton with Mario Cuomo. I don't know who the real ones are. If you had those horses today, you would win every major election if you had real ones. What made those guys special? Don't forget what made them special. They were all born of the outrage. Jesse Jackson's a real one. He was. He was born of the outrage. Mario Cuomo had the outrage. Bill Clinton had the outrage. Moynihan had the outrage. Ann Richards had the outrage. These people were like, you're not going to check my personal story. I came up hard, and yet I want to help. And that is a tough match. Democrats need those horses again. You got to find them.

[B]

I think. I think we are in a moment because, you know, this, this specific cohort of, of Politicians in D.C. in the Democratic Party have held on, have, have gripped on to power for so long. We have watched Joe Biden get to the point where he was unable to prosecute the case against Trump. We have watched Ruth Bader.

[A]

That's a generous assessment, by the way. That's a nice way of saying you guys shouldn't have said that he was still himself when he wasn't anymore. But go ahead.

[B]

I mean, look, when, when, when Joe Biden is up on stage saying that we beat Medicare, I think that, that pretty much, I think that pretty much nails where his rhetorical prowess was at that, at. But we've watched Ruth Bader Ginsburg die in office, Gerry Connolly die in office. We have watched the same slate of Democrats that have been in office since I got onto the scene and started doing political media are still there, they're just getting older. And we expect to continue to be the party of 18 to 29 year olds. Of course, there's gonna be a major chasm there. And so I think we are seeing a generation, you know, whether it's my generation, millennials or Gen Zs that have been shut out of power, shut out of politics on the left for so long that I hope that they are of that same as, as the people that you were just talking about, because A, the, the, you know, the people in power are largely there, you know, in service of themselves. B, they've been shut out for so long and C, the economic environment doesn't work for so many people. And that's why you're seeing welders and, you know, oystermen and pastors and, and, you know, blue collar people come up and say, I want to be in office. I want to challenge these people that have been in office for, you know, 10, 20, 30, 40. And so look, I, my, my hope, the thing that I drive some, some, you know, some hope from, as we head toward 26 and 28 is that there is gonna be that generation of real, authentic, you know, angry people that come into office and, and, and direct that anger in a virtuous way and start figuring out how D.C. can, can, can work for regular people.

[A]

That's the key. And, and that's, that's what we're missing. Missing is. And that's the two fringes. And, and part of the reason we're missing it is because we're. The commodity is division and outrage. Yeah, but what did Mario, what did my father have? Okay, I know I'm I'm a white guy. Okay. I know I'm not saying anything but that my father was not considered a white guy. He was considered an ethnic. Okay. Yeah, he had that other thing going. He was another, and he hated it, and he hated the people who got to decide that and who kept opportunities from him. So he was a real one. Okay. But he loved the country. That's the part that you guys, in my opinion, don't get.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I don't believe aoc any of your horses. Yeah, I have a hard time believing they love the country. I think they hate more about it than they love about it. And that may be unfair. Unfair, yeah. But if it is unfair, it's because of how they've made their own case about themselves.

[B]

It was funny when. When I was. When I was in high school, I wrote. I wrote a paper on why it should be illegal to burn the US Flag. Like, very conservative position, very patriotic position. And I think we're grown up that. That were raised in an environment. We do the Pledge of Allegiance, and there's a lot of, like, you know, American patriotism, jingoism, whatever it is, is when you're raised in America. And I know that by the way, because I taught in France for a couple years, and the notion of standing up and pledging allegiance to the flag is so creepy, weird, and foreign to them that they. They couldn't wrap their heads around it. When I explained that this is what we do from, like, age 7 up until, you know, 18. I mean, hell, we do it at baseball games when you're 40 and 50 and 60 and 70 years old. So we're raised in an environment where we are supposed to be as patriotic as possible. But it's hard because I think that there comes a point. Look, I think it's fair to say that there is a lot in this country that doesn't work for regular people. And I don't think it makes you unpatriotic to be able to acknowledge that. I think it makes you patriotic to be able to recognize that we can and should do better and that we deserve better and that America could be better. Better. And so there's. There's toeing that line of, like, you know, for the people for whom that kind of shallow display of patriotism is important. You're right. We've ceded that ground to the other side. But I think that there is some virtue in being able to acknowledge that, like, we shouldn't be in a world where we accept the scraps that are given to us, where every Tax cut. Every tax cut is heaped upon the ultra.

[A]

But it's about how. It's about how. And you're right, the certain. But look, here's my point. Why are people surprised when they see an American flag on my truck or in front of my house? Why were the Democrats okay with that becoming a party symbol for the gop? Yeah, you are absolutely right. And every political philosopher has only agreed with you that dissent and criticism of your government is one of the strongest forms of patriotism. I don't even think that's really an open question. Question, however. Well, what do you balance it with? When's the last time you heard Democrats say something good about this country? That's true too. And I, I think it goes to your point about, hey man, you gotta, you gotta play the game where it stands. I think that a real one who hates certain things that were done to them, systemic, cultural, and is fighting to change it because they believe so much in what this country can be is and is at her best.

[B]

Best.

[A]

That's the sweet spot. I can't think of the last time I heard AOC say something good about the country. Now, there are a lot of people right now who will comment without even listening to the rest of what I say. Well, that's because we're racist and this and that. And you've got those people. They're, they're, they're a bunch of them. And some of them hate you and some of them love you because they hate the other side.

[B]

Side.

[A]

That is not enough to get to the majority. And I will say one other thing and then I'll let you go. And with a reminder that, man, I love talking to you, Brian, and I love that your resonance and your reach are growing. I think you're such an important voice and I'm happy to have a relationship with you. You are right about the French. And man, is that killing them right now. They are desperate for a sense of national identity. Identity. They are lost in an insurgency of type and cultural chaos because they allowed two, almost three generations of people to flood into their country and not assimilate. And as a result, they now have a ring around Paris of people who are two generations in French citizens who don't give a fuck about being French, who know the language, but they won't speak it and they don't identify that way. And the French are desperate for an idea of national unity. And America does not want to go that way. We have one of the best things going for us, which is assimilation. You get to Keep what you are, but you become something else when you're here. Just like my people did. Just like your people did. My grandparents came here. Trump would have never wanted them. Even though they were light skinned, he would have never wanted them. Dumb, uneducated, no money, no real skills. Right. He does not want those people. But they came here, they love the opportunity. They never forgot that they put their kids into the military. They put their kids into service because they wanted to give back for what was given to them. That's the sweet spot. And whoever finds it first, we know what we don't like. We know how to fix it. And we're doing it because we love this place. That's who wins. So let's keep talking. My brother and I wish you all good things.

[B]

Chris, thanks so much, man. I appreciate it.

[A]

I love a conversation that makes me rethink what I thought I already knew and understood and how I decided to see things. That is the one thing that I appreciate about podcasts, which is why I try to make my podcast about that one thing. And this conversation with Brian Tyler Cohen. He's right. He's even more right than I used to think. So now does that mean we're going to agree about all the positions and the tactics?

[B]

No.

[A]

But I know where he's coming from because I considered it from his perspective instead of of only looking at it, as I always had. That's the mistake that we're all making on a regular basis, especially when it comes to social media. But also, I think is a fair criticism of how most of us live our lives is you believe what you've always believed because you've always believed it. You don't even remember how you got there necessarily. But you surround yourself with echoes of the same. That is not how you grow. It's not how you get to a better place. Place. And if that's what your goal is, and it's certainly mine, you gotta be open to what you think you disagree with, at least to understand why. Thank you very much for subscribing and following and joining me here at the Chris Cuomo Project and checking me out on substack TikTok Instagram. I'm putting out more and more content in those places. And yes, we are going to have different subscription models to get different kinds of content exclusively. That also comes with access and offerings, brings with me and to me. Okay, so look for those, look for the gear, all right? Why? Because I want you to wear your independence. Okay? We're the fastest growing part of the electorate Amen. Free agents, critical thinkers. I am different, okay? You should be different. You do not want to be like what is out there in the main, okay? That's why. That's what the gear is. Buy it. You know what I'm using the money for, okay? I'm using. Using it to make crowdsourced contributions we can all feel good about. And you will be with me step for step along the way. I'll see you News Nation. 8p and 11p every weekday night. If you're in the cable game or you can watch the clips online, YouTube is where you subscribe. All right, my brothers and sisters, the problems are real. Our approach is the same. Let's get after it.

[B]

Sam.