← To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
To The Contrary with Charlie Sykes
Chris Cillizza: Can we walk and chew gum at the same time?
01:00:19
Loading summary
Transcript134 lines
- [00:00]
Chris Cillizza
Foreign.
- [00:11]
Charlie Sykes
Welcome back to the to the Contrary podcast. I am joined today by Chris Cilliza. And we are going to win friends and influence people. Actually, no, we're not going to do any of that sort of thing.
- [00:22]
Chris Cillizza
Maybe influence people, but not win friends. Probably.
- [00:24]
Charlie Sykes
No, we're. We, we may not. Look, I want to talk. We are just, you know, fair warning. We going to talk about the Jake Tapper book. We're going to talk about Joe Biden a little bit later. And I'm going to give you my take on all that. But let's go through some of the things that are in the news before that. And I know that you've written about it, this seems like it is such a huge story that kind of gets lost in the shuffle. But the end of the Elon Musk experiment, I find it extraordinary how high he was writing, you know, how high he was writing just a few weeks ago. He's on the stage with the chainsaw. He's absolutely everywhere. He's the ultimate kingmaker. Then he falls flat on his face in Wisconsin and now he's saying, yay. You know, he may not give as much money anymore. So give me your take on the Elon experiment. Bottom line, did it succeed? Did it fail? Did Elon get some things he wanted out of it?
- [01:25]
Chris Cillizza
I mean, it's, the Greeks were right. Like, this is an Icarus situation. Right. I mean, it feels if, like it was always people hubris ask me. Yes. People always ask me in the first couple weeks of, of the, the second Trump presidency, like, how long do you think this bromance will last be? Like, right. You know, I don't know. But like, the comparison I always drew was this is two piranhas in a bowl. They might not try to eat each other the second you put them in the bowl together, but they're going to try to eat each other because it's their human nature, right? Like, it's just, it's. Or their fish nature. It's. This is, this is the thing. So Elon and Trump were never going to. It's just too combustible. They're in many ways too similar. It was never going to work. And, and Elon, you know, look, Elon's political antennae are, in my opinion, not particularly good. I mean, he, yes, Donald Trump got elected. But, but beyond that, like, he's not like a great spokesperson for Donald Trump. He says all kinds of weird things. Him putting himself front and center in Wisconsin was obviously a mistake. I mean, like, you or I, if they paid me $50 to be a political consultant to them. I would have said, well let's see. Don't put in, don't make an election where people don't really know the two main candidates. Don't make it a referendum on an unpopular person that everyone knows. I mean like not complicated. So his, he was never I thought long for the political world. I will say though, to your point Charlie, it is remarkable and maybe this is just the way news cycles work now, but it is remarkable. He was utterly ubiquitous two months everywhere, right? Doing the Oval Office thing with the kid on his shoulders and he and Trump are doing this co press conference.
- [03:11]
Charlie Sykes
He's running the cabinet meetings. He's there in the cabinet, right.
- [03:15]
Chris Cillizza
I mean he's everywhere and now he is literally nowhere. I just did just because I was interested. I did a, I always think these Google search trends things are interesting like pieces of data because everybody uses it and it's like what's the level of interest in him? You know it was in, in the end of January, February, everyone was searching for him all the time and now it's like nothing and he's just kind of slinked off the stage. And I do think it was a combo of things. I think politically it was Wisconsin state Supreme Court case where he clearly was a loser. I mean like and again you could have seen that coming a mile off but, but he was clearly a loser. And then I also think it was the Tesla sort of the declines in Tesla, how politicized it's been. Stockholders starting to get.
- [04:00]
Charlie Sykes
He totally and shittified that brand, didn't he?
- [04:03]
Chris Cillizza
I mean it's, it's remarkable and I would recommend to people Jonathan V. Last wrote a good piece about resale value of Tesla cybertrucks. Thing gets at sort of how I, I, this is so funny as a. I do not own a cyber truck because it's the single ugliest car in the world. But I own a model which I bought five years ago and what is fascinating, I was saying this to my wife the other day when I bought the Tesla it was our concern was are people going, are conservatives going to key it? Because this is anti American. We're a, we're a, you know, we real engines and big trucks and, and now it's going the exact opposite way where it's like a symbol that you're like an Elon and Donald Trump person. But point being like that brand was clearly starting to fail. And then I would also add look, Elon Musk is a guy who kind of Flits from thing to thing to thing. Right. He's got a company that drills holes. He's got a space company. He has, he has, you know, Tesla, he does a lot of things. He is not a guy who's like, I'm going to go work in the mines for five years on this thing. So I don't think we should be surprised by it. But to your point of like, oh, no, what did he accomplish? You know, probably for himself, some things that we don't even know yet in terms of regulations. Right, right. That are going to benefit him, and those things are harder to find out in the moment. So I think he actually probably did do himself some good and kind of protecting his business interests financially. It doesn't matter, because when you're as rich as he is, you know, $250 million is. I mean, I hate to say it, but it's nothing. Right. But I don't think, I mean, I think he caused, you know, full. My view of, of ultimately of Elon Musk in the political slash Washington world. The quote, Faulkner, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Now, it's not nothing if you were one of the civil service employees that he laid right.
- [05:57]
Charlie Sykes
The damage is real.
- [05:58]
Chris Cillizza
Right, the damage is real. But like, if you look back, it's going to be, they talked a big game and they didn't deliver.
- [06:06]
Charlie Sykes
Right. I mean, this is why you kind of have to break it down, you know, in terms of, you know, lowering the, the overall cost of government. It was, you know, wholly unserious. You failed miserably. The $2 trillion turned out to be just a fraction of that. However, he did do damage. There's no question about it. We're going to see that damage. We're already seeing that damage, I think with the faa. We're going to see it with FEMA and a variety of things. Yes, but to, to your knowledge is, you know, since we're getting wonky here, you know, Icarus, who flew to, you know, close to the sun, there was that element of hubris that Elon Musk was the smartest man in the world. That. And you could see that he was, he was like, puffed up, that he was not only the richest man in the world, he controlled Twitter, he was going to Mars. He elected the President of the United States. He spent what, $290 million and all he got was that stupid red hat. But he was always tone deaf about the politics. And as you're right, there was no way there was room for more than one ego. But but in terms of his own personal brand, you would think about what his image was as this world be striding genius. He thought he was Iron man, which I've written. He thought he was Iron Man. He turned out to be Zoolander. And so, and just, hey, just a little bit of a digression that you mentioned though, the cybertruck. And it was almost as if when he insertified Tesla that, that the scales dropped from everybody's eyes and everybody went, wait, that is the ugliest fucking truck we've ever seen. It is. It looked like it was designed by kindergarteners with crayons. And it was like, before that it was like, yes, but it's Tesla. It's Elon Musk. And now people are going, wait, this is just a piece of shit. It's just junk.
- [07:50]
Chris Cillizza
See someone, when I see someone driving it, I immediately think less of them. Not, not because I hate Elon Musk, but because I'm like, what? Dumped you to think. Like, what? Yeah, debate whether a Hummer is, you know, a smart purchase or not. But like, I get it, A big muscle car like Corvette, whatever. It's just so damn ugly. This is, it is like the only thing that I can think of why you would buy it because it's not cheap. Right, but why you would buy it is at this point it's like a virtue signaling thing. Right?
- [08:22]
Charlie Sykes
Or the opposite of whatever that is. Yeah, whatever. I don't know.
- [08:25]
Chris Cillizza
But, but it's, it's become this brand identifier. But I'm like, look, man, just as somebody who likes nice looking things and doesn't like ugly things, it's, it is.
- [08:36]
Charlie Sykes
It is really hideous. Okay, close.
- [08:38]
Chris Cillizza
And I was like, what are we doing here?
- [08:40]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, no, I, I saw one driving by the other day. Okay, so let's talk about the other big story. And I have to admit that I, I try. I don't get into the weeds of congressional action because I feel it's these elaborate kabuki dances inside of kabuki dances. But the big beau bill, they're ramming it through. Donald Trump went up to Capitol Hill to twist arms. Your take on what's going to happen? My, my default setting is they're going to get something passed at some point because they have to. I don't know what it's going to be. Okay, so what do you think?
- [09:13]
Chris Cillizza
Yeah, that's exactly right. Look, I spent some time covering Congress. I was never a congressional reporter, but I'd go up there and you know, I think there is, there, there is an audience for this. Like, did you see what happened on the rules Committee kind of report has obviously made a, a mint.
- [09:30]
Charlie Sykes
They own it.
- [09:31]
Chris Cillizza
I just don't care that much about it. I'm in the same space as you. I think exactly what you think. They will pass something. Now, I don't know if it happens by, by Memorial Day or after, but they will pass something because they have to for a couple reasons. Number one, because he started with tariffs, which politically is idiot, in my opinion is idiotic. Right. It's like give people the dessert and then feed them the broccoli. Maybe they'll eat the broccoli then. But they definitely want to give it to them first because they started with tariffs.
- [10:02]
Charlie Sykes
I like broccoli.
- [10:04]
Chris Cillizza
Yeah, I know. Well, pick the, pick the vegetable you don't like. The analogy doesn't work for everyone.
- [10:10]
Charlie Sykes
Kale, anchovies. I'm sorry. No, no. Yeah.
- [10:14]
Chris Cillizza
Because they did the anchovies first. Ice cream sundae second. They have to give the public something. And my strong sense is that, first of all, this bill from anyone who is a serious thinker about our debt and deficit and, and not a partisan, will tell you this is a disaster for our debt. This is going to, this is going to put us past the projections now, will put us past World War II, where our GDP is outweighed by our debt. Right. By 2034. I mean, this puts us on a path toward the exact opposite of when you were in 2010, a fiscal conservative Republican. You'd be like, no, Paul Ryan's head. I was the one with this bill.
- [10:56]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, right.
- [10:57]
Chris Cillizza
So anyway, from an economic standpoint, doesn't make sense. But what they need, here's what they need, right? And this is at least what I think they think they need. They need a check for, I don't know, $2,500. Sign grandiosely with the pen. Not an auto pen, his actual pen signed Donald J. Trump that arrives in your, in your mailbox sometime in the, in the fall because they've already had you eat the anchovies. And that's the hot Fudge Sunday now, 2500. I don't even know what the tax break will be, but ultimately it's probably not going to change or you're not going to be able to quit your job because you got this. But it's something. So it's that. And they control everything. And people know they control of it. They control the White House, the House and the Senate. And if they don't do this, what the hell are they going to do because I agree there is the, the repeal and replace of health care ain't happening. People like. And so if they don't do anything in these two years and if they don't pass something in this space, they're not going to do anything big. What the hell do you go to voters with?
- [11:59]
Charlie Sykes
You know, I think that we ought not to underestimate the political attraction of handing out goodies. You know, handing out the, handing out, handing out the Skittles, you know, the no taxes on tips, the deductibility of interest on car loans. None of this makes sense in terms of growth economics or in terms of debt and deficit. But they're going to go to each one of these constituents say, see this goody thing that I've given you? Please don't notice that you're paying more at Walmart for a variety of things. I wonder. However, given the speed that they're moving, they fully understand all of the consequences of what's in this bill, including there are going to be some massive cuts to Medicaid, including.
- [12:37]
Chris Cillizza
There's no way, there's no way they understand it. This is an 1100 page bill. Give me a break. I mean, and by the way, if this was Democrats in charge and they were trying to ram through an 1100 page which they fund all of President Harris's agenda.
- [12:51]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [12:52]
Chris Cillizza
They wouldn't know what the hell was in it either.
- [12:54]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [12:54]
Chris Cillizza
So. No, they absolutely do not.
- [12:56]
Charlie Sykes
But they'll be stuck with it afterwards. Once they passes, once they have their big rose card in celebration, people are going to go. By the way, do you see what you just did? And I, I think it's going to be interesting. I mean this is, this is part of the problem. But I think my default setting is that the fiscal conservatives and the moderates will make lots and lots of noise and everything and then they will cave in and this thing will pass by the smallest of margins and probably JD Vance will have to cast a deciding vote. But they're going to get something done. So that's, that's.
- [13:23]
Chris Cillizza
And you know what, like it's an interesting thing because, because I think the truth of the matter is what we've seen over the last decade is principled opposition within the Republican Party to policies that Donald Trump wants fades away when Donald Trump threatens you. Now there's the Tom Massey's of the world who will stand up against him.
- [13:43]
Charlie Sykes
But like you know, even Rand Paul. Yeah.
- [13:46]
Chris Cillizza
Find a way to be for it because they're, they're afraid of him still. And they want to. They feel like they have to do something. Never underestimate that.
- [14:00]
Charlie Sykes
No, I mean, for people who want to know how big this is, how expensive it is, you know, go back and listen to our podcast we did with Jessica Riedel, who talked about how expensive this is, that this is like take the four biggest bills that were passed over the last four years, you know, and add them up and this is bigger in many ways. Bigger spending. So much for fiscal conservatism. Okay, so here one of the things.
- [14:24]
Chris Cillizza
Charlie, can I just make a quick recommendation? Mentioned. Since you mentioned Jessica Riedel, she wrote a great. Going back to Elon. She wrote a great piece about Doge and what actually for the Atlantic, the Doge website. For the Atlantic, the Doge website says they've saved $170 billion. It's very. First of all, that's way less than 2 trillion, which is what Elon said they were going to do. But. But regardless, it's very unlikely even that number is accurate. And she does a really nice clinical, non partisan job of just saying, here's what we know and here's why there's a reason to be suspicious. Just to recommend. I don't know her, but just to recommend. It was a great piece.
- [15:00]
Charlie Sykes
No, I would also, I was, I would second that. Okay, so last night or this morning, this new study came out from this polling group, Catalyst. This is widely viewed. This is not, this is not a fringe thing that lays out some really, I would say, you know, some gobsmackingly alarming numbers if you're a Democrat for how Trump managed to win people who had also voted for Barack Obama, which again, get your head around all of that. And it documents the losses among men, the losses among young people, the losses among minorities. So I know that you talked about that yesterday. Give me your sense of basic bottom line of what this is telling Democrats.
- [15:45]
Chris Cillizza
So my. I still think there are a lot of Democrats. And I want you to, if I'm wrong, I mean, I always try to. I don't want to character either side because I think that's one of the things that we have wrong with our politics. So if you think this is wrong, I want you to tell me. But I do think there are a lot of Democrats who even now. Right. Donald Trump twice elected president. I think there are a lot of Democrats who you ask them, like, how did this happen? They will do some. And I'm oversimplifying, so oversimplifying and paraphrasing, obviously, but I think they'll do Some combination of, like, well, there's a lot of dumb, racist, misogynist, old white guys out there, right?
- [16:25]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [16:25]
Chris Cillizza
Okay, that like, like is the broad analysis. And I'm always like, Trump got 78 million votes. Like it wasn't just old white guys who hate women or who hate black people. Like, yeah. Did some of those people vote for Donald Trump? Oh, 100%.
- [16:39]
Charlie Sykes
They were, they were there. But that's not the whole story.
- [16:42]
Chris Cillizza
78 million people. So what this shows to me, I mean, the most amazing stat I cite to people all the time is Donald Trump won one in three non white voters in 2024. I mean, that is stunning given it is, given who he is, what he has said, what he has done. I mean, I always go back, I think it was in 2016, where he said, look at my minority over there or look at my black. And it was like a black.
- [17:06]
Charlie Sykes
Right, right.
- [17:06]
Chris Cillizza
I remember Latino or whatever. This is a guy who clearly views minority groups as kind of like you know, just in block, in moss. Right. No, no nuance, no context or anything. He won 1 in 3 non white voters. He. If you look at the charts in there, I think it is. The story is not just he did better among men than he did in 2020, which he did. He did better among young people, 18 to 29 year olds than he did in 2020, which he DID. The real growth for him is Hispanic men, Latino, Hispanic women, Asian and Pacific Islanders. Urban voters. Young, urban voters. So it's, it really is in a lot of ways, like Barack Obama's coalition. Our friend Amy Walter pointed this out. I know Barack Obama's coalition. Like, if I, if you had to name, okay, what's Obama's coalition? It would be affluent white people, Hispanic and black voters, young people. Right. Like, those are basically the kind of three, three legs of the stool.
- [18:09]
Charlie Sykes
Women.
- [18:09]
Chris Cillizza
Well, women. With Trump, non white voters. Now, he didn't win them, but he was way more competitive, particularly among Latinos and with young people. He was, I mean, Obama was winning young people by 30 points over John McCain. Well, you know, Trump fought almost to a draw and won young men. And I think my point here is like, I, I think it's twofold. One, it's not just angry old white guys, number one. And then two, and this is, I think, slightly more optimistic for Democrats. It is not clear to me that anyone not named Donald Trump could build that coalition. Right. Like, because he is sort of this like larger than life celebrity figure. He has been in sort of our cultural conversation for decades.
- [19:01]
Charlie Sykes
Hard to Hear. Yeah, he's true.
- [19:03]
Chris Cillizza
But so, but so, so it's like, I don't know that J.D. vance is that same appeal to 18 to 29 year olds, maybe. I mean, you know, I genuinely don't know. So I think that that would be, would be the best thing for Democrats out of this. At the same time, what I would say is, like, look, the electorate that elected Donald Trump in 2024 would have overwhelmingly, the same people would have overwhelmingly reelected Barack Obama in 2012, more so than he won, more so than he wanted. I mean, it's stunning. The electorate got less white and younger and the Republican one.
- [19:44]
Charlie Sykes
So the parrot. The paradox here is that on the one hand, this is a success for Donald Trump, but I want to focus on the fact, and Democrats have to come to grips with this, that this is documented failure, objective failure. And you know, where I come from on Donald Trump, I mean, I have spent probably, I wanted to say literally, but I've spent the last 10 years, every day telling people how bad Donald Trump is, how deplorable Donald Trump is going through his crimes, going through everything, and yet he won the election. But that also meant that Democrats, now two out of three presidential elections have failed to beat this guy. And I think the fundamental question Democrats have to ask themselves, particularly the Democrats, who understand just how horrible and how dangerous Donald Trump is, how is it they cannot beat this guy? And the thing about American politics is, and I'm not saying this to you, you don't. But I mean, just to walk through this, to getting to our next topic, it's not an up or down referendum. It's not Trump or not Trump. You have to have an alternative. The Democratic Party has failed to provide an alternative that could be, that could defeat the most dangerous, I think, toxic political candidate in American history. And so Democrats really do have to ask themselves, okay, what went wrong? How did we lose to this guy? How did we lose these voters? And I think this gets back to, you know, this, this debate about, you know, can we walk and chew gum at the same time? Can we say Donald Trump is the worst? And I'm saying this, I'm not speaking for you, it's the worst president ever is an existential threat to democracy. But we need to have a conversation about why the Democrats, in effect, handed him the White House back. And I am really struck by the vitriol and the anger of people aimed at Jake Tapper and others who said, look, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can talk about the dangers of Trump. But really we have to ask, what did the Democrats do that handed the White House back to him? And does it go back to the fact that Joe Biden, whatever you think about him, you know, God bless him and we pray for his family and everything that Joe Biden was not up to the job? So let's just talk about this book. You have, you know, you've taken a.
- [22:10]
Chris Cillizza
Lot of flack for this sitting here.
- [22:13]
Charlie Sykes
So let's start with, let's start with his diagnosis for cancer. With cancer and whether or not that ought to change the way that we talk about this. Our good friend David Axelrod said everybody ought to back off. We ought to mute all of this. This is not the time to talk about this. You disagree with him. Why not? Shouldn't there be kind of a pause, like, okay, the guy's got serious cancer. We can't bash and beat on him anymore? What do you think?
- [22:45]
Chris Cillizza
I guess I don't disagree that. I don't disagree that there could be a. Some level of pause, you know, and that may be ultimately what Ax was trying to get at. I think the quote got, you know, parsed up a bunch. What I would disagree with is because of this diagnosis, we need to move. We should not discuss this book. We should not discuss what's in the book. We should not discuss the, the documentation in the book from, from that, you know, from reporting by two very. Whatever you think. I mean, I always say this. You can like or not like Jake, you can like or not like Alex Thompson. They're both like real serious reporters who are trying to do it right. The documented evidence in the book over and over again makes clear that there was evidence at least in 2022 and maybe as far back as 2015, that things weren't great with Biden, his physical and mental well being. I don't think that the diagnosis cancels all that out. I really don't. I think that it is. I think we can do two things, which is, I think we can acknowledge, yes, this is awful. Joe Biden has had a blessed life in a lot of ways. President, United States, but also a cursed life. He lost a child. He lost two children. Right. He lost one at a very young age. His daughter. He lost his wife. His son in Bo was, I think, a little older, younger than me, 45 at the time. You know, I mean, there is a tragic arc to Joe Biden and I think that we can acknowledge that. At the same time, I'm going to, I'm going to do it for my own life. I always say this to people. I always say, if you don't like me, don't say nice things about me at my funeral. It's totally fine. You don't have to like me. It's. It's. It's not a requirement. I don't. Just because you die or get sick doesn't mean every. If. If you and I were at daggers drawn and knock on wood tomorrow I got some terminal diagnosis. I would not want Charlie Sykes to be like, you know what? Chris Lewis is a great guy. Because you don't think I'm a great guy. If you didn't yesterday, you don't tomorrow. Like, my point is, it's like, we.
- [24:47]
Charlie Sykes
Might send you a bottle of bourbon. I mean, just because I'm a Midwestern nice guy.
- [24:53]
Chris Cillizza
Yes. You're. Well, you're from the Midwest, and that's why you're good people. My point is, is like, these two things don't. They are interrelated, but they shouldn't change. What we are talking about is, did the sitting president, United States, a person, the most powerful person in the world who was running for a second term until he was pushed out of the race, to be clear. Right. He did not voluntarily get out.
- [25:16]
Charlie Sykes
He was pushing a huge political story. Yeah.
- [25:18]
Chris Cillizza
Was this person someone who his staff should have said, it might be time to go? If the shoe was on the other foot and we were talking about Donald Trump or Mitt Romney or George W. Bush, I don't think liberals would be like, all right, well, let's move on, because he has prostate cancer. Like, I just. I don't. Nor do I think they should.
- [25:40]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, so, you know, I'm reading a lot of the comments. Everything people saying, everybody needs to shut up, it's litigated. He was always. We knew he was old. Why do we need to talk about Donald Trump?
- [25:49]
Chris Cillizza
Is Hitler.
- [25:49]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. Why are you not talking about Donald Trump? And again, I want to, like, underline this, that I talk about Donald Trump every single day.
- [26:00]
Chris Cillizza
Me, too.
- [26:00]
Charlie Sykes
Okay. Every single day. So this is not like, you know, well, why are you not spending time talking about Donald Trump's decline? Okay. But here's. You have in. You did a breakdown of the book, and you said my favorite paragraph, and I think I got it right here. The White House responded to any. Basically, you know how they deflected the criticism. The White House responded to any question about Biden's age by pointing to Trump's seemingly unhinged behavior on the campaign trail. But Trump's limitations did not mean that Biden's deserved less scrutiny. Biden was the sitting president and he was struggling to not only keep a robust schedule, but also articulate his thoughts in public and private. Okay, now here, let me, let me give you my breakdown on all of this because, and I understand a lot of people do not want to talk about this. I think, look, this is only irrelevant. People say, what's history? It's ancient history. He's old. We knew he was old. Can we talk about something different? Okay, well, it's only irrelevant history if it could never happen again. And what I'm seeing is all these voices saying, let's not talk about it, let's never raise these questions. We have people in the media who are saying, shut up. By the way, what a weird, you know, flex that is for media, media people saying, shut up, don't cover this story. We have people in the media who are criticizing people for talking to reporters about, say, John Fetterman or about others. We had a congresswoman or I think it was a Republican congressman who just, who just disappeared.
- [27:27]
Chris Cillizza
She was in an assisted living memory.
- [27:29]
Charlie Sykes
Care home and no one said anything about it. So the question, and I think people ought to ask theirself, given this, this bubble mentality, given this denial, this group think, this tribalism, if in fact we have a Democratic candidate for president who might have, I don't know, advanced prostate cancer, are we going to tell people about it or is like, shut up, don't mention this, do not talk about it. So I think the fundamental question here, and you, you've really gone into this book in great detail. I'm listening to it on audible, is was this a cover up? Was it a conscious cover up by the politburo? Now there's a lot of evidence that what we saw in public was bad, but what was saw in private was worse and they went out of their way to conceal it. But if there was a cover up, it was a dumb cover up, it was a failed cover up and it was a credibility destroying cover up. So let's just go through this dumb, because if in fact there was this decline and you really did think that Donald Trump was an existential threat, then by trying to cover it up, you were actually, it was self defeating, it was also a failed cover up. Because every poll that I've ever seen shows the vast majority of American voters knew there was a problem. They saw it with their own eyes, right? So clearly people, you had not succeeded in it. And obviously when he came out on that stage for the debate, it all fell apart in a dramatic, dramatic way. I mean, that was, it was all. And as a result, now the Democrats have had their credibility really shredded on all of this because you weren't honest with us. And so after all of this lecturing about post truth and how we can't have alternative facts, you know, we have this entire ecosystem out there saying shit, shut up, don't talk about all this. So I actually think that yes, there was a cover up attempt by the politburo, by the inner circle, but the bigger story was the denial, the delusion, the group think and the tribalism among Democrats. And they need to wrestle with this. That, and you and I both know this, and you probably know this more than I do, but that every time you raise the issue and I raise the issue from 2021 on, we were absolutely flooded with the flying monkeys who said, shut up, shut up, shut up, stop talking about this. We know he's old. If you raise the issue of his age, you're helping Donald Trump. And that kind of, that was more powerful, I think, than anything that the inner circle did, which was the Democrats just did not want to hear it. And they shouted down and demonized anyone that raised it. And even now that you see the absolutely catastrophic consequences of it, they still don't want to confront it. And I think that's the real danger going forward, not just looking back.
- [30:18]
Chris Cillizza
I totally, 100% agree with everything you said. My point always is you have to really put blinders on to think that the, what happened in 2020, 24, of which the debate questions about Biden's age and competence, questions about what they knew and when they knew it. If you don't think that that played a role in Donald Trump being in winning, I think you have blinders on, literally. And you cannot fix a problem that you refuse to.
- [31:01]
Charlie Sykes
This is the heart of it.
- [31:02]
Chris Cillizza
This is you.
- [31:02]
Charlie Sykes
Yes, this is absolutely the heart of it.
- [31:04]
Chris Cillizza
Right. The if those who are. Who who fail to understand the past are doomed to repeat it. Like if you do exactly the whole move on. I don't mean moveon.org I mean move on, move on from talking about this crowd, you lost. And not just you didn't just lose. And this is a point you made earlier, Charlie. You lost to Donald Trump, who I would argue is the best, single most flawed Republican that they could have nominated. I think I'm of the view that Ron DeSantis wins this. Even, even old pudding fingers Ron wins this election. Nikki Haley walks away with this election. You lost to this guy who People did not want to be for, okay, you lost to him. You did not take over the House, you lost the Senate majority. You have a minority of governorships in this country. You have a minority of state legislatures in this country. You cannot look at that and simply say, well, 20, 24, I mean, that's yesterday's news because you can't fail again.
- [32:04]
Charlie Sykes
So, well, okay, so this is, this is, and I'm sorry to be, to agree with this so radically here, it's that I understand the people who are saying, you know, why should we be, we should be just all focusing on Trump. We should be focusing on the danger of maga. Well, I agree with that, that how do you defeat maga? You don't defeat MAGA with nobody. And the question is, if this story, if this decision here, if this attitude basically handed the White House to Donald Trump, then we need to talk about it because it will happen again. If you don't actually honestly address it, it will. And in fact, you see this happening already with kind of that bubble around John Fetterman, and it's some of the same people and again, media people who are saying, don't talk about all of this. So here's my big question, though, and this goes back to why I put more emphasis on the denial, delusion, group think and tribalism than frankly I do on the COVID up, which obviously failed miserably. The people who were, you know, fingered in this book, the, that small group.
- [33:10]
Chris Cillizza
Of people that protect Mike Donlon, Steve Richetti. Yep.
- [33:15]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, all of these folks. And yet these were also the folks that put him out on that debate stage where the whole thing fell apart. So if you're trying to cover up Donald Trump, why then do you put him out in that particular way? Because that was one of the most catastrophic miscalculations in the history of American presidential politics.
- [33:38]
Chris Cillizza
So when I can't ever answer a question, my friend Tony Kornheiser channeling Don Ulmeyer, who was once the head of Monday Night Football at abc, longtime ABC executive Don Ulmeyer told Tony a long time ago, and Tony has passed it on to me and I think about it all the time. The answer to all your questions is money. Now, when it comes to politics, I always say the answer to all your questions is money and power.
- [34:02]
Charlie Sykes
Power.
- [34:02]
Chris Cillizza
There's a, there's a, there's a thing in here that's gotten a little overlooked. Although our mutual friend Jeff Greenfield flagged it. I mentioned it in my piece, but kind of further down, Jeff Greenfield flagged it today. Mike, Donlin who had been with Joe Biden was Mike Donlin's bell cow. Okay. He had been with him since the mid-80s. He, Mike Donlin demanded $4 million to work for.
- [34:25]
Charlie Sykes
Million, that's correct.
- [34:27]
Chris Cillizza
Million. $4 million to work from February to November to leave the White House and work on the campaign. $4 million. Now this is at a time when I think General Malley Dillon made the campaign manager. I think she made like 250 or 300,000 for the whole, whole thing which is not nothing but it's not 4 million. And Biden was like pay it Jill Biden. Guess what's, guess what Joe Biden like doing being the first lady, right. Like I just think these people who had bet it all on Joe Biden and that bet looked like it was not going to, you know if you told me after Obama sort of emerges as the nominee in the summer of 2008, like well that's it for Joe Biden ran for president. You know he ran for president twice. Didn't really go anywhere either time I'd be like that makes sense. Well they Suddenly, particularly after 2016 where he didn't run, they suddenly got another bite at the apple that they, him included never thought they were going to get and they were going to preserve that power, financial remuneration, access for as long as possible. Because the truth of the matter is I wrote about this. Biden to me in this book in original sin comes across as sort of an ill defined but ultimately sad, sad. He, he's what I compared it to.
- [35:50]
Charlie Sykes
Is like you called him fuzzy presence, a light touch, he's present but not really there.
- [35:55]
Chris Cillizza
Which is weird right? Because the book is President Biden's decline, its cover up and his disastrous choice to run. Again like it's obviously about Joe Biden. He is the central character of the book and yet he's not really the. I compared it, I think in writing about it to when you and your siblings are having a conversation about your dad or your mom, like oh I think it's time to put him in a home. And, and they're there but they have no agency. It feels like the major players in this book are Jill Biden, Steve Richetti, Mike Donlin, this guy Bernal who I didn't even know about last name is Bernal who was a Jill Biden person. He's not really an active player now that's his fault right? At the end of the day for whatever reason, whether it's age, whether he didn't want whatever it's he's the president, United States. He's the buck stopper. Right. But I ultimately kind of felt badly for him because I, and I, I mentioned this in my write up. The words that kept echoing through my head. Remember how Democrats demonize Robert Her? And when Robert Hur said that he was a nice old man with, with, with memory issues and they were like, how could you. And all these Democrats piled on and this guy's political. As I read this book, that description, that one sentence description by Robert Hurt is how I felt about Joe Biden. Kind of like a little bit out of it. Too old. Like it's hard for me to read the book and hate Joe Biden. No, because he's not like, he's not Machiavellian. He's not, he's not like scheming. He's just kind of there. And Robert Her, I mean, I think Democrats owe Robert Her a massive apology. He was.
- [37:41]
Charlie Sykes
Well, especially when you listen to the tape. Especially when you listen to the tape. And you know, it's funny that there have been a couple of podcasts that I've listened to where they play, they play recordings of the audio from the debate and from, from this, this interview. And when you hear it, you really do feel that sense of sympathy. Now I also understand the defense, the defense of, you know, people, you know, the pro Biden folks who are saying, look, there's no evidence anywhere, including in this book, that that his cognitive decline or his aging affected his decision making. There's no, no moment you can point to which is true. But, but really it's part of the, he has good days and he has bad days.
- [38:19]
Chris Cillizza
That's it.
- [38:20]
Charlie Sykes
Which, by the way, is the most familiar quote from any family that has dealt with an aging parent. And it's very clear in this story and everybody's account that, yes, when he was on, he was on, you know, and, and I will admit that I was this, I was going to mention the State of the Union speech, but then afterwards he would sort of disappear. And, and that this is the problem of being president is not just what legislation you sign, it's being a communicator, it's being a leader. The idea that he could have run a campaign, a successful campaign against Donald Trump was the nicest word I can come up with. Naive. The idea that he could run and win that campaign from behind because he was losing in the polls and then serve another four years. That's what's delusional now, what it all comes back to. And let's go back to the original sin is. I want to bounce this off you. There are other people who say, well, the real original sin was. Is the fact that people put up with this and tolerated this because there was no plan B. Because everybody said that, well, if it's not him, it's going to be Kamala Harris and she's a disaster. So there's a case out there, people saying the real original sin was his selection of Kamala Harris to be his vice president because everybody regarded her as simply not a viable option. I remember, you know, this, this, this commentary. Yes, this is bad. This is, you know, he's. He's clearly in decline. But there is no plan B because it's either Biden or it's going to be Kamala Harris, and that's going to be a disaster. That played a huge role. And as you point out, one of the things that comes through in this book is Biden never really believed in Kamala Harris, did he?
- [39:59]
Chris Cillizza
Never. No. I mean, a couple things to me, if you want to go all the way back, I think this is ultimately the failure of the early 2000s, strong Democratic push and identity politics. Because think about how we got here, right? Let's rewind the. I don't know if rewinding the tape doesn't even work anymore. People don't understand. There was once a VHS machine and you must rewind.
- [40:27]
Charlie Sykes
We are dating ourselves.
- [40:28]
Chris Cillizza
Let's go back.
- [40:29]
Charlie Sykes
And when you dial the phone, be kind, be kind.
- [40:33]
Chris Cillizza
Rewind. When, when you go back. When did Joe Biden make the pledge about picking a female, guaranteeing he would pick a female vice president in a debate with Bernie Sanders? Why did he do that? Because he was worried that the identity politics left would not accept him if he didn't do it. To me, it all grows from there. I think it is ridiculous to say to lock yourself into. I'm picking. I'm cutting off 50% of the population. And I don't care whether. If he said. I mean, he wouldn't say this, but I'm going to pick a white guy to be president, whatever. Like, no matter what it is. I think it is ridiculous. So it goes back a little to that. But also, don't pick someone that you don't think could be president. He clearly did not think she was up to it. I think that was evident throughout the term in the. There's a bunch of stuff in the book where Biden is basically calling her. He calls her a quote, unquote, work in progress. Yeah, it was clear to me. I think Two decisions were heavily influenced by, by his and his inner circle's lack of trust in Harris. Number one, the decision to run again. Now, I think the decision to run again, to run in 2024, was largely driven by, you know what, being president's a great fucking gig. Like, yeah, there are downsides to it, but if you're Joe Biden, who has been running to be president since you're in 1987 and you're finally president, are you really going to be like, you.
- [41:58]
Charlie Sykes
Know what, and the people around him too. Right. I mean, again, this politics, all of their, all of their power, power emanates from him being in that job.
- [42:06]
Chris Cillizza
All the eggs are in that basket. Okay, Right. So he's not going to walk away from it. That's the biggest reason. But I think the second biggest reason is he convinces himself of two things. One, I'm the only one who's ever beat Donald Trump. I mean, demonstrably true, although it's a small sample size. And two, he is convinced that she cannot win because he doesn't think she's good. Maybe because she's a woman of mixed race. A woman of mixed race. Right. You know, he may see that as two strikes against her in terms of the broader relationship.
- [42:34]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [42:35]
Chris Cillizza
So I think that informs his decision to run again. And then I think he, and by the way, Joe Biden is still convinced of this. He thinks he.
- [42:44]
Charlie Sykes
Even after June, that's just, that's just delusional, though. That's so delusional.
- [42:49]
Chris Cillizza
27Th, he is convinced he would win and she would not go to the View a week and a half ago where he's doing this. He's trying to put, he and Jill are trying to pre bot the release of this, this book effectively.
- [43:02]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [43:02]
Chris Cillizza
And he says, number one, he wasn't surprised that she lost. And two, he doesn't give a direct answer to this, but he has said as much around it.
- [43:11]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [43:11]
Chris Cillizza
That he thinks he would have won.
- [43:16]
Charlie Sykes
He would not have won.
- [43:17]
Chris Cillizza
No chance he was going to lose. Let's say June 27th never happened.
- [43:21]
Charlie Sykes
Let's say they would have lost spectacularly.
- [43:24]
Chris Cillizza
He would have lost.
- [43:25]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. And the losses down ballot would have been much, much, much worse.
- [43:29]
Chris Cillizza
He was losing. I mean, this is the thing I don't get. He was at 30 on, I looked at this, there was a Gallup poll June 1 to June 20 or something before the debate. He's at 38% approval. He is behind Trump in every single swing state. Now, he's not behind by 10, but he's behind after June 27th, it would have been an absolute avalanche. There's just. There's just nothing out there that suggests that's not the case. And yet he continues to do it because. Because he doesn't think that much of her. He does not think she would win prior to June 27th. He did not think she would win after June 27th. And he thinks, in his weird way, that this is all. The loss is proof he was right. Not the loss is proof that he screwed this all up, but that he was, in fact, right. So if I'm Kamala Harris and I see what's in this book and I see what he said on the View, you know, I mean, Kamala Harris wants to run for something. I think she probably runs for governor, but she wants to run for something I am livid at. Joe Biden and his team live it.
- [44:29]
Charlie Sykes
Oh, I think there's. I think there's a lot of bitterness now. Anytime something like this happens, I think we all have to go back and say, okay, what did I think? What did I say? What was. What mistakes did I make? I actually think that I underestimated Kamala Harris. I was one of those who actually liked those social media posts comparing her to, you know, Julia Dreyfus and in veep and everything as a candidate, I thought she had a very, you know, abbreviated time. But she definitely overperformed her debate. You want to talk about the worst debate in history being Joe Biden's? I think she turned in a very, very strong debate. But I think watching the Democrats react to all of this was, was really kind of, you know, I, I, by the way, so I'm sort of confessing that I had bought into the no plan B. But my mantra throughout 2023 and 2024 was the prime directive right now in American politics is not to reelect Joe Biden. It is to keep Donald Trump from power. And maybe that's the never Trump part of me, which is like, don't focus on. It cannot be about Joe Biden. So there were a lot of, you know, Joe Biden fanboys. There were a lot of never Trumpers who decided that Joe Biden was, you know, I mean, the best president in our lifetime. He's so fantastic. You know, let's not criticize him. And I think, no, this is not about Joe Biden. It is about defeating Donald Trump. And I think people took their eye off that ball. And as a result, what you were left with was this, this hollowed out figure who, you know, and again, what Democrats were doing at a certain point was this massive gaslighting telling millions of voters, ignore the evidence of your own eyes. Now I, you know, I'm hearing all the people saying, well, you know, we should be focusing on, on Donald Trump's, you know, cognitive decline. Well, look, you're not, let's assume that Donald Trump, you know, is in fact, you know, in severe cognitive decline. I'm, let's not get into that right now, but let's say that he is. You're never going to successfully make the case. If you're a Democratic Party that has is on record ignoring Joe Biden and still in denial, what is your credibility? So I think there's a lot of bullshit conspiracy theories about his cancer diagnosis. But one of the reasons why those have been fed is because, well, wait, if you have been misleading us or covering something up for years, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt? So losing credibility has long term implications, not just historical, but in the moment and going forward.
- [47:01]
Chris Cillizza
I want to make two quick points. Number to your, to yours. Number one, people always say conservatives and Trump people will bash me and I'm sure you too. And they'll be like, you think everything Donald Trump says is not true and you blow everything out of proportion. I say, look, let's just take it out of the Donald Trump context. If I have a friend who tells me that he's going to buy me a vacation home in the Bahamas and he's like, I'm buying it next week and every week he doesn't buy it. Well, at some point I'm like, that guy is not credible. Donald Trump, whatever you think of him, lies all the time. He just does. I mean, like, I don't mean that as a partisan statement. It is a well documented fact. He says stuff all the time, whether it's insane asylums are dumping people here, there's no one left in the prisons in Congo. He said that yesterday. Like these are. So when someone doesn't tell the truth all the time in your life, you are disinclined to believe the next thing they tell you is true. Okay, why does that matter vis a vis Biden? Exactly what you said in the book. It's documented that when in 2014 or 2015, Beau Biden had already had brain surgery, the Bidens had a doctor come out and publicly say he has a totally clean bill of health when they knew that wasn't the case.
- [48:17]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [48:18]
Chris Cillizza
So, and then the book documents the COVID up of, I believe, cover, active cover up, successful or not, attempted cover up of some sort of clear more bad days than good days or a lot more bad days that happen with Joe Biden. So when Joe Biden comes out and says, oh well, prostate cancer, it just happened. Like, yeah, I think there's reason for skepticism because liars lie and people who obfuscate about health obfuscate about health. That's, that's point one. Point two is I just really struggle with the lack of intellectual consistency and intellectual honesty. Just because it's the guy, you cannot say. You mentioned this earlier. I don't know how you can hold these two ideas in your head. And I didn't understand in 2024 and I don't understand it now. You said rightly the argument for many Democrats was Biden isn't perfect, but Donald Trump is an existential threat to our way of life, our democracy, etc.
- [49:20]
Charlie Sykes
Which I believe was true then and true now.
- [49:23]
Chris Cillizza
If he is truly an existential threat, you cannot hold that fact, which I think many people genuinely believe and believe now to your point with, well, we're going to nominate this guy who we know is too old and has bad days. No, if he is an existential threat, you have to do anything and everything to beat him. And nominating Joe Biden or allowing Joe Biden to go through this process until it became clear he couldn't go through the process anymore. It can't be both things. Donald Trump can't be an existential threat to democracy. And we're going to nominate this deeply flawed guy who a majority of the American public thinks is too old and doesn't want to vote for. No, if he's an existential threat, you find the best person.
- [50:06]
Charlie Sykes
Well, exactly.
- [50:07]
Chris Cillizza
And you nominate them. Doesn't mean you're gonna win. It's not a guarantee. But you can't have. Both of those things can't be true. Right?
- [50:16]
Charlie Sykes
Yes, Right. And I remember having these discussions actually in that three week period after the debate. I mean, people sometimes forget that. I mean, David Plouffe's comment is, you know, he totally fucked us. Yeah, no kidding. But the argument, well, like Charlie, but he's been such a good president. He passed this bill and he did this and did that and it's like, sure, yes, but, but you know what? The nomination and an election are not a gold watch for past service. It's like, fine, that's not how it give him a medal. But that's not the way it should work. And simply because he passed this big inflation bill or whatever, the, the infrastructure bill doesn't change the formula that you just presented, they get people think, whatever.
- [50:58]
Chris Cillizza
You think, whatever you think of how he's going to be received in history, people thought he was too old to do the job and they were not going to vote for him.
- [51:05]
Charlie Sykes
And yet every time people brought that up, it was this massive flood. And again, this is something that I think is as significant as anything the politburo did. And I'm talking to people who might be listening to us right now. The comments section, when I was at a previous publication, overwhelmingly stop talking about all this. I get that reaction. You get that reaction. Stop talking about it. Don't bring it up. So, so it's one thing to have a cover up. The COVID up never would have gotten off the ground if you had not had this vast ecosystem of people who said, we need to create this bubble. We need to make this bubble as tight as possible and we cannot let any, you know, we can't open our, you know, the possibilities. Which is why again, you ended up with Kamala Harris having a what a 100 and some day campaign, which I thought she overpriced, performed on, but it was not ever going to happen.
- [51:57]
Chris Cillizza
Well, it get to get back to your in retro started this Biden conversation. You, you, we journalists must walk and chew gum and be able to. So must partisans. If, if it was, if I go back to this, I think you and I have talked about, I don't know if we've talked about it publicly, but we've talked about it privately. I know if you boil down in 2016 and 2020 for the message, the final closing message of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris and I've seen this.
- [52:27]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [52:28]
Chris Cillizza
Watch the ads, watch what they say at the end. It effectively boils down to, well, I mean, you're not going to vote for him.
- [52:34]
Charlie Sykes
Right.
- [52:35]
Chris Cillizza
And, and yes, in fact, they will vote for him. And this gets to your point of it is not enough. Who said this to me? Rui Teixeira, who's a Democratic think tank guy, probably more on the moderate end. He said, and I keep thinking about this, he said this to me a month or two ago. He said what the Democrats don't realize is the swing and independent voter, they don't hate Donald Trump like you hate Donald Trump. They just don't. Now you can, you can think they should, you can think they should think he is an active threat to democracy, but they don't. And I think the biggest mistake Democrats make is, well, surely we're not going to go down this road again. And the truth is you must have a proactive agenda. Just saying Donald Trump is Hitler, Donald Trump is a dictator. It will work to make you a shit ton of money on substack. It will work to get you a shit ton of followers on YouTube. It will not work to elect a Democrat president, United States States. And that to me is, you must understand that they do not hate him like you hate him. And therefore, you must make a proactive argument that goes well beyond. Well, I mean, Donald Trump is the other guy. Like.
- [53:59]
Charlie Sykes
Well, exactly. I mean, I, if Democrats are going.
- [54:02]
Chris Cillizza
To go in 2028 to, well, you don't want this again, I would argue that that won't work either. It might work.
- [54:09]
Charlie Sykes
And that's why the, yeah, that's why the lesson needs to be learned. Because, of course, you know, I would like, you know, voters to have come to that conclusion. I mean, but I also understand the limitations of all of that. And if you spend time talking with some of those soft voters, you kind of realize that, you know, the, the other side of that equation is there. So here we are in this particular moment in American history, by the way, just taking a longer view where one of the most salient issues of our time is whether or not the President of the United States, the person who occupies the Oval Office, was cognitively impaired for a period of 12 years. We're now having a debate where there are legitimate questions over whether or not the man with the finger on the nuclear button, was too old and cognitively impaired. And asking this question from 2017 on, if you're a Democrat, you're asking it about Donald Trump, if you're a Republican and asking it about Joe Biden, which is, which is bizarre. So we'll see where this all, you know, this, this, this shakes out the Biden story. I understand how Democrats, you know, don't want to continue to talk about it, but, but here's just another thing, is, look, if the Democrats go into 2028 as a party that says, yeah, you should elect us because we are the party of Joe Biden, it's not going to be pretty. And I'm sorry, you know, whatever, how much every much you admire him and love him.
- [55:35]
Chris Cillizza
And the truth of the matter is, again, I'm going to repeat myself. But those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it. The idea that some, we are not talking about something that happened in 1980, we are talking about something that happened in less than a year ago, November.
- [55:55]
Charlie Sykes
And whose consequences are being felt every day now, I mean, you can't answer the question how did we get to this moment? Why is this happening to us now? What is happening to America? Well, if this is the trigger, then for God's sakes, definitely talk about it. Talk about it.
- [56:13]
Chris Cillizza
I always say to people, what problem. Problem in your life? Okay, take it out of politics. What problem in your life has ever gotten better by ignoring it? Like, oh, I have this lump on my leg. No, I'm sure it'll be fine. I'll do. We're not going to talk about it. Doesn't. That's not how. Or you have a psychological thing, right? An issue with your parents or your kids. Nothing ever gets better until you resolve the problems from the past. And by the way, sometimes the very long ago pass, not the 20, 24 pass, until you adapt, address it in a fulsome way. There is just sticking your head in the sand and saying, everyone who voted for Donald Trump did it because they're racist sexists who hate America. I'm sorry, that's not a conclusion. That will get Democrats where they want to be, which is back in some semblance of control and back to being a party that people trust. We haven't even talked about this, Charlie, but I always mention this to my Democratic friends. The Democratic brand, based on polling, is in worse shape today than it has been arguably in 40 or 50 years and maybe ever. That is not an accident. That is not. That does not exist in a vacuum. That doesn't have to do with exactly what we spent the second half of this podcast.
- [57:25]
Charlie Sykes
Right. Well, okay, so, so I just want to clarify my position here because I'm not in a position to recommend to Democrats you should have this position or that position. Because, of course, you know, I'm not a Democrat. I am, I am not a progressive. My advice to Democrats is do whatever you have to do that is smart that will make you stop Donald Trump or stop maga. You need to figure out how to win. And whatever will help you win is probably a good idea. And the things that are scratching your ideological ID or that, you know, play within your bubble, that will not help you win are bad ideas. So I understand that. And here's the Democrats have this really significant problem. They, they, they will recognize in the abstract they have a, you know, a gerontology problem. Right. It's too old and they need to move to a younger generation. Well, you're not going to be able to solve the gerontology problem unless you kind of come to grips with the Joe Biden problem, but also the moving to the younger generation. And here I'm going to piss everybody off. This is not going to solve your problem if your answer to this is AOC and David Hogg and Kat Abu and these other folks who could not win an election in any majority making swing district in America. And that's my only word on, on all of that.
- [58:40]
Chris Cillizza
So, Chris, no, I, I think again, I understand why people want to solely focus on Donald Trump. I think he is, he is the most, he is undertaking the most radical attempted expansion of executive power we have ever, ever seen. Things he is doing today will have ripple effects not just next year, but a decade from now. I think he's fundamentally altering American politics for the bad.
- [59:07]
Charlie Sykes
I agree.
- [59:09]
Chris Cillizza
That is not enough. That, that does not, you do not. That is not a get out of jail free card for Democrats. Again, maybe this is the 2020, but it will not be in 2028. You cannot be against, against Donald Trump.
- [59:24]
Charlie Sykes
Well, that's why I'm calling this segment the Walking and chewing Gum that you can really despise what Donald Trump is doing or I'll be alarmed by Donald Trump. What Donald Trump is doing. Regard Donald Trump as an existential threat who must be defeated. But also then say now we need to talk about why we didn't defeat him in the past. And again, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. And I think we have successfully done it. Chris Cilliza, thank you so much for your time today. Appreciate it very, very much.
- [59:48]
Chris Cillizza
It's a pleasure. I always feel like I get smarter talking to you and I need to get smarter. So thank you, Charlie.
- [59:53]
Charlie Sykes
Oh, we don't, don't we all? And thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary podcast. We do this and today's just another example because we need to keep reminding ourselves that we are not the crazy ones. Thank you.