The Chris Cuomo Project - Andrew Yang, Forward Party, Broken Politics

Episode Date: August 4, 2022

In this week’s episode of The Chris Cuomo Project, Chris explores how the media twists words to serve specific agendas. Andrew Yang, founder of the Forward Party, speaks with Chris about the failures of the two-party system, describes the purpose of his new third party, and shares his predictions for the 2024 presidential election. Subscribe and follow The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Thursday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. The project has been blown up on the chart, and it is because of you, people like you, and a little bit people like me. That's why I have to keep encouraging you. Subscribe, follow, like, go to Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, wherever you want. But just as importantly, make sure that you're spreading it among the people that you care about, because that's what's making this grow and work right now. You know, you think, oh, what can I do? Each one helped one and things spread. Look at the charts. The proof is in the success of the project. And listen, it's remarkable because this support for the show is all and entirely organic, right? The project

is not owned by any giant platform. It's not like I heart or Apple or anything like that owns us so that they're going to put us out there in a bigger way. We're not promoted by any multinational media company. Instead, it's all powered by you. You have taken the time to check us out. And more importantly, and I know the subscribe to follow. All of us say the same thing for you guys. But you have to remember how important that is. But you shared it with your friends and your families.

All right. So I'm super, super grateful and even more motivated than ever to make this as much as we can. And I'm absolutely excited about our future together for that reason. Now, I really did have a strong gut feeling in whom I call the free agents, people like you, open mind, open heart, willing to listen, open to the idea that if you disagree, that person's certainly not your enemy. And maybe they know something you don't. There are a lot of us.

In fact, I think it's most of us. And we're seeing that as the numbers grow surrounding the project, people who are searching for something different, something better. I'm sure that there's going to be a swath of sane people out there searching for an outlet, unjaundiced by party allegiance. And I think you know what I sense, which is, yep. So the purpose of the show is to give people like you a space where you can hear ideas being discussed. Okay. You get different takes on issues. Not everything is equal. Okay. Some ideas are better than others and we'll set it up that way because that's what common sense dictates. And then you'll have the time to choose, to honestly examine, look at the

details of the realities. Let's get depth and understanding, and then you'll make the choices. And the goal should be obvious to make things better, or at least at this point, less sucky. Okay. I also think it's important for you to realize that this is brand new and I'm still figuring out how to do this. And I'm, I'm figuring it out with your help in large part. And we shouldn't expect the project to be in the business of breaking news. This is more about depth and understanding than it's going to be about headlines. But Senator Joe Manchin, we found him in a sweet spot, okay? Him stating that he wouldn't support Biden for a second term necessarily, he may, may not. But him saying that

it made news and it certainly fed interest in the project. And it's really interesting how on just our second show, you know, you have this powerful senator on it and he felt comfortable enough to say how he really felt and what he saw as our real challenges. He's even open to having more parties. I mean, when's the last time you heard a Democrat or Republican say, yeah, I think I should have more people to contend with. But it's a sign that maybe things are changing in a way we should want them to. Now, all of this is to say again, thank you. Thank you for motivating this effort with me. You're making it happen. Together, we're going to create a space for real talk that fuels understanding and choices and, Lord willing, some progress.

Lord willing, I'm going to be in that business now. No, I'm not a preacher and I'm not a teacher. I'm just somebody like you who really believes that things can be better. Now, let's turn to the impact of our early efforts, okay? You want to be in the business of calling out the game and defining most people as not Democrat, not Republican, not independent, free agents. Inherent in that is a threat to the way things are right now. Okay. And the more that, you know, people like me say we have to get away from two parties and that the media shouldn't be fanning all the flames. Some flames should be smothered.

You do that. You call out the game. You're going to get heat from the players. Okay. And the proof of that is I'm getting heat from the players. My January 6th comments have been weaponized to rile the left. Now, first, let's remember what I said. And you can go and look at the episode. It'll be up there forever, okay? It's our last episode, the one just before this one. Joe Manchin. Now, what I said is what happened on January 6th, horrible, could have been much worse. Reeks of contrivance absolutely should be rooted out and exposed, and if warranted, even prosecuted. I said all that. I also said that the more significant criminal concern, at least involving Trump and co, affects what we're learning not just about January 6th, but about these

larger extended efforts to manipulate electors in certain states. Now, what I've seen so far absolutely could warrant a criminal investigation, certainly at the state level. could warrant a criminal investigation, certainly at the state level. I also said that the Democrats should remember that most of you are more concerned about pocketbook politics, gas, inflation, the fate of the economy, than just the political hijinks that are going on. Not to cheapen the need to look for answers about January 6th, but to remember it's not all about January 6th. So don't just focus on this, which is why I think the deal to spend on the environment and the larger tax implications are something that we'll unpack here and that you guys should be paying more attention to. That was a big deal, that Schumer mansion deal. I don't think it should be called that,

and I'll tell you why a little bit later. Now, I think everything I said about January 6th and the context for it makes sense. And you probably feel the same way. Like, I think everything I said about January 6th and the context for it makes sense. And you probably feel the same way. Like, I don't get it. What was the big... Okay. But that's not all I said. I also said that for any exposure of illegality or criminality to create a consensus with people like you, you need politicians out of the mix. What's the proof? Benghazi, her emails, Mueller, impeachments, the dueling hearings that we've seen, depending on who's in power. All of that fuels misgivings about the toxic twosome, Democrats and GOPers, as I call them, toxic twosome. They're in this blood sport of oppositional politics. Okay. All of that, all of that is something that we have to be very careful about.

And it started recently, in my estimation, with that BS surrounding Hillary Clinton. But her emails. And what am I talking about specifically as BS? The use of the law by politicians to police politics. That is radioactive. You do not want your politicians using the law to take down the other side. Mueller investigation, impeachment, former AG Barr messing with the explanation of the evidence in that probe and more. And of course, January 6th. When it comes to these Trump investigations, more often than not, absolutely, there has been proof of bad deeds, bad judgment,

bad choices, bad politics, that ugly situations that, you know, should be absolute anathema to any type of leadership have absolutely been enjoyed and encouraged by Trump and his people. And he and his people have behaved in ways that may disqualify them with voters. And yes, you do have your whatabouts when it came to Clinton and Hillary and what happened with her servers and how she was managing information and whether she wanted to be transparent or not. And yes, with Joe Biden and his family and what it could mean. Yes, there are questions about tactics and ethics. But just because you can point the finger at the other side doesn't mean that the way these situations are handled helps anybody. The point is, all of it is fine for political debate and for hearings by Congress. We're warranted by situations that

raise legitimate issues that can be addressed by legislation. I don't know what we could do legislatively to make January 6th less likely to be repeated. But I'm not saying that there shouldn't be hearings. I'm not saying that they should move on. But once you talk about jailing, prosecuting, that's not politics. Now, although the law does allow for Congress to refer matters to the Department of Justice, I think right now, the less connection to Congress, the better. The Department of Justice can certainly look at situations and supposedly is without Congress's help. They don't have to get a reference to investigate, right? And while congressmen do have the right under the law to probe,

and it's an extension of their oversight, no question about that. It's in the Constitution. But just because you have a right doesn't make how you're using it right. And maybe the right way to do this probing would be with an independent body, with mixed membership of former electeds, okay? Not currently in the game. I think when we do that, it allows people like you to have more confidence in the process and in the outcome. Think the 9-11 Commission. Now, I know that Nancy Pelosi said, oh, yeah, we were trying to do what we did with the 9-11 Commission. Well, I don't know how that could be the case because you're dealing with people who are currently in office, and that's not what the

9-11 Commission was. The whole point of having former Governor Kaine in there and the others, you know, the former governor of New Jersey, was that they weren't in office anymore, but they were respected leaders and they did reflect both parties. I think that was the key to the 9-11 Commission. And this is all sitting lawmakers. So even if it were from both parties, it wasn't going to be like the 9-11 Commission. So what's the point? The point is that what I said, which I don't think you're taking a lot of exception to,

I really don't think you should, but the comments are being twisted to make them weaponized. And that is a good example of the game being exposed. Okay. I want to show you a headline from Newsweek. I'm using Newsweek because they're, you know, nominally straight, right? Certainly not an overt fringe outlet or some Twitter creation. But this headline is twisted to make it seem like I'm attacking the Democrat efforts, telling them to give it up. Like January 6th doesn't matter. Like there's no proof of anything wrong. That's not what I said. So why twist it that way? Because it allows for it to be fed to the Twitter fringe on the left extreme as a digestible notion that I've gone bad on the

Democrats. This is retaliation for whatever. That's nonsense. I'm not anti-left. I'm not anti-media. I'm not anti-Congress. Now, I am anti the two-party system, and I am exposing the game where I see it being played in obvious examples between the parties. That's why I call them the toxic twosome. And yes, that game sometimes involves the media as proof of why we need more parties and more efforts by and for free agents like you, people with no team or tribe, like this project to help us change our culture. Now, disclaimer, I'm not going to be talking about myself and my coverage. I don't care about my coverage. It's good to have any coverage because it brings attention to the project. But it is such an obvious example of the game that I wanted you to see it. That what they say, oh, Democrats should only focus on these

other pocketbook issues, not this. I never said that. Right? There's nothing really there. He doesn't see any proof of criminality. I never said that. See, and that matters. And it, you know, the expression, consider the source. When you see that reported that way, consider the source, because all you have to do is watch the podcast. That's not what I said. It's not certainly not what I meant, which is pretty obvious to you. So then why twist it? That's the game. It's not about me being targeted or some victim or something like that. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you have to be on the lookout. And I'm only talking about me because this is a flagrant

example of it that's just easily identified. Because you can just go listen to the podcast and I'm telling you, it's not what I meant and it's not what I think. So then why would it be that way? And notice, you don't see me quoted in any of those articles. And I'm telling you, a big reason for that is nobody's going out of their way to get my side of it. What does that tell you? Now, all of that is context for our guest today. Once again, we're getting lucky here on the project. Andrew Yang is starting the Forward Party. He just brought in Christy Todd Whitman. Remember her? She worked with mixed administrations. She also was governor of New Jersey, Republican. Why is he bringing him in? Well, sure, it's not just Democrats. Joe Sestak from the Democratic Party. He was in the House. She was a governor. Why? He

wants people from both sides. Now, my take, I don't think that Yang needs bold-faced names from the parties. I don't think he needs players as much as he needs numbers of free agents like you. I think the more he gets membership, he'll get the bold-faced names. But I don't think the bold-faced names will bring you. That's just my take. We'll see what you think. Now, Yang is getting slapped around for hurting the Democrats. Maybe that's why he wanted Whitman, you know, to show its bipartisan appeal. But he is going to get beat up because pundits and media players are saying that he's just hurting the Democratic Party and that third parties in general are spoilers and never really work.

Those criticisms are right to a degree. Other than some state level elections, you don't have any real third party action. And when there is a third party action at the national level, it usually is a spoiler. But the conclusion by these guys, implicitly or explicitly, is a suggestion that, therefore, the two-party system is the best way to do this. Now, I think the answer is more likely

go the other direction. No, not two, more. Four, you're right. Maybe three just creates a spoiler dynamic, but four wouldn't. More choice, I believe, is better in this situation. Rank choice voting at the state levels, certainly, and if they could pass it at the federal level, amazing.

Doubt it, you know, in this current two-party configuration. But it would give you more choice. Look at what happened in the New York mayoral election. You wound up getting somebody in Eric Adams, you know, not somebody I know particularly well, wasn't my guy. I don't have a guy, but he wouldn't have been. But he wound up being somebody who seems most acceptable to people like you, not necessarily people in the parties. More choice, ranked choice voting, a shame campaign to get purple states to apportion their electors that would change the presidential prospects but more choice

would get you coalitions get you compromise potential fixes instead of the fixation on zero-sum destroy the other and you win politics. So Andrew Yang is here and now. He's going to surprise you. His tone is going to surprise you. His choice of language is going to surprise you. What he's going to reveal to you about the game and what he learned running for president that he hasn't really shared. What he believes is the future, it is going to get tongues wagging. But I don't care about the noise. I care about you having the opportunity to hear his ideas tested and then you decide. Let's get after it. Let's get after it. Support for the Chris Cuomo Project comes from Factor.

I got to tell you, this stuff is good. I like it. And if you're a meal prepper, okay. But if you're a meal prepper wannabe and on the go, but you want to get your gains and want your macros in place, this works. They sent me a bunch of them. I tried them. The kids liked them. My wife liked them. She liked the ingredients on the back. She liked the nutritional information. Okay. Chef crafted, dietician approved, right to your door. 35 different options. And not just in terms of variety of food,

but type of diet. Keto, calorie smart, vegan, veggie, whatever you want. So, you want options, you want it cost effective, but you want it to be the fuel that you need to get where you want to be. You should get started today

and have a feel-good week of meals that are ready to go. Factor is the perfect solution if you're looking for fast, upscale options done easily. So head to factormeals.com slash Cuomo 50. Factormeals.com slash Cuomo 50 and you will get up to 50% off your first box and two free wellness shots per box while the subscription is active, okay?

Again, head to factormeals.com slash Cuomo50. Use the code Cuomo50 and you'll get 50% off your first box and two free wellness shots per box while your subscription is active. Okay? The code is Cuomo50 at Factormeals.com slash Cuomo50. You'll get 50% off your first box and two free wellness shots per box while the subscription is active.

We don't fake the funk here. And here's the real talk. Over 40 years of age, 52% of us experience some kind of ED between the ages of 40 and 70. I know it's taboo, it's embarrassing, but it shouldn't be. Thankfully, we now have HIMS, and it's changing the vibe by providing affordable access to ED treatment, and it's all online. HIMS is changing men's health care. Why? Because it's giving you access to affordable and discreet sexual health treatments.

And you do it right from your couch. HIMS provides access to clinically proven generic alternatives to Viagra or Cialis or whatever. And it's up to like 95% cheaper. And there are options as low as two bucks a dose. HIMS has hundreds of thousands of trusted subscribers. So if ED is getting you down, it's time to pick it up. Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash CCP. H-I-M-S.com slash CCP. And you will get personalized ED

treatment options. HIMS.com slash CCP. Prescriptions, you need an online consultation with a healthcare provider, and they will determine if appropriate. Restrictions apply. You see the website, you'll get details and important safety information. You're going to need a subscription. It's required. Plus, the price is going to vary based on product and subscription plan. You are a perfect guest, not just because you're a big shot and so many people love you. You are a free agent. I am a free agent, like two free agents on the couch. Yeah. I mean, you have learned firsthand the limitations of party and you're starting your own party, the forward party. We want to talk about that, obviously, but in terms of you have an open mind, you have an open heart, you're willing to listen to people and you don't want to be tied to dogma. Why is that such a precious commodity? It's funny, man. I mean, I was new to

politics and public life, uh, 2018 when I decided to run for president, everyone remembers, you know, it's like, who's this guy? I don't know where. Uh, and so a couple of the reasons I'm here today, uh, one is Chris was one of the journalists who actually dug in and figured it out, uh, before before just about anyone else. So I'm super grateful. The other thing is I speak for a lot of people. I thought what happened to Chris at CNN was total bullshit. And Chris may or may not talk about it in those terms, but I can talk about it.

So for me, you know, I ran for president as a Democrat and I did learn about the limitations of the system. And after I came off the trail in 2020, we were all at home, COVID, you know, I'd beam into CNN sometimes. And I wrote a book trying to figure out why I still felt so despondent about the future of the country, even though I, you know, I felt like I'd accomplished an unlikely amount in my campaign. accomplished an unlikely amount in my campaign. And I realized that it's because we're being set up, that our two-party system is set up not to succeed, but to turn us against each other, to fail, to have... Gridlock would actually, in some ways, be optimistic. I mean, I think it's getting worse than Gridlock pretty quickly. So I figured this out in 2020 and was like, wow, how the heck do we get out of this mess? And I realized that we needed a realignment of our politics. So it wasn't just two sides clashing. And I know you're all about this too. 42% of both Democrats and Republicans now view the other side as morally corrupt, evil and a threat to the country. And that's not healthy at all. So I thought I might be able to help with that. One of the reasons that Andrew is valuable to all of us is this. I want to show you something. If you

can see his arm, he gets goose pimpled when he talks about this kind of stuff. And then he talks about me, he goes away. That's okay. You care. And what do you wish you had known before you got into the presidential race? What did you learn there that would have been important, if not instructive, if not dispositive, to have known before? You know, it's funny because you're one of the leading voices in terms of national media. What I didn't know was the different relationships the parties had with the media, where 69% of Democrats place a high trust in media. And that's, I think, very, very true of the primary voters that I was courting in Iowa, New Hampshire and other places.

Independence, that percentage is 39%. And then for Republicans, it's 15%. Now, I did not know any of this when I was running. But on the Democratic side, the media is very, very powerful in shaping people's perceptions of candidates. And I didn't realize just how true that was until I was running. I remember talking to you early on, saying to you, this is a game. There is a game afoot. There are alliances, there are allegiances, there are agendas. And not like that's unholy or that it doesn't exist anywhere else, but that it was here. And you seemed very determined to empower people to think for themselves. Do you think that is possible right now in the state of play in our elected politics?

Oh, right now, we're not being encouraged to think for ourselves. I mean, the polarization I described is not accidental. I mean, there are certainly political incentives that drive people to both sides. And I just want to try and spell it out for people. Right now, you're probably not happy with how things are going politically, how US Congress is doing, because I know this because the approval rate for US Congress is around 20% right now. Four out of five people not happy. But if you look at the reelection rate for incumbent members of Congress, it's 94%. So if you're a sports fan, that's literally higher than the Kevin Durant Warriors. Congrats, Warriors. I'm winning the title fourth in eight years, whatever it is.

Or the Jordan era Chicago Bulls, which is more our alignment. So you're like, wait a minute, how the heck can you guys have that high a win rate if everyone's so upset? And the incentives to stay in office are not to please 51% of the people in your district, which is what we imagine. It's actually just to avoid getting primaried within your own party. Because 90% of these districts are drawn such that the general election is predetermined. So the reason why the re-election rate is so high is that 90% of districts are uncompetitive in the general election is predetermined. So the reason why the reelection rate is so high is that 90% of districts are uncompetitive in the general. So to keep my job, if I'm a member of Congress, I just need to keep the most hyper partisan 10% off my back. So you have these political incentives that drive people to the sides. And then the media organizations make

more money by giving us what we want. It's like, it's if I reinforce what you already think, then you like me more, and you come back and you tune in. So one reason why you're such an interesting figure is because, you know, one of the reasons I thought you had the highest ratings at CNN is because people could tell that you were independent-minded and it wasn't as much like of a, you know, party line dogma. And then social media is making everything

much, much more extreme and inflammatory, where now if I get ideological and polarized, then, you know, I get more clicks more likes etc etc yeah the discovery that not only are the platforms aware of what's being said and how but that they place ads adjacent to inflammatory provocative incendiary stuff that tells you everything you need to know they They know that's what sells. Oh, yeah. And the binary system. So, you know, this is seen as controversial, but I don't know why. You know, the reason that you have 40 something percent say they're independent. Now, I'm not a big fan of that word because independent to me suggests that you're out for yourself. And we are to be interdependent here for this place to work. You've got to care about one another.

The place just doesn't work without it. Independence care. Independence care. But I know what you mean. But that's why I like free agent, you know, because you're not independent. It's not that you only care about yourself. It's that you're not aligned with these other interests and agendas and dogma that you're just blindly accepting because that's your team,

like me being a Jets fan. You know, the Jets suck, but I have to root for them because they're my team. Is that a true story? Are you a Jets fan? I'm a Jets fan, and it is terrible. They have never been good my entire life. They won in 69. I was born in 70.

So they have never really been good, and they make terrible mistakes all the time, terrible ownership, terrible management, and yet I'm a fan. Our politics shouldn't work that way. But when I say, look, I'm not a fan of the Democratic Party. I certainly don't think it's my father's party. My brother can answer it for himself. I'm not a fan of the Republican Party. Two parties doesn't work. No, it doesn't. Because all it creates is a natural oppositional tendency

for me to benefit from you sucking. Yes. I don't have to say why I'm better than Andrew. I just have to say Andrew's terrible. And I will win by default. And that's all our politics is right now. Oh, yeah. If you listen to Democrats for 30 seconds, you'll probably hear something venomous about Republicans because that's their primary selling point at this point.

And the same thing is true on the Republican side. If you listen to them for 30 seconds, they'll just be talking about the Democratic Party. I mean, look at the January 6th hearing, okay? primary selling point at this point. And the same thing is true on the Republican side. If you listen to that for 30 seconds, they'll just be talking about the Democratic Party. I mean, look at the January 6th hearing, okay? So we're watching this stuff play out in real time. I was shocked that the ratings were as high as they were early on. I see that as fatigue and a trough space in the overall market. There's just not a lot going on right now. So people are paying attention. And what do you see there? You see that there was bad shit that happened on January 6th and that there seemed to have been fundraising

based off it afterwards and maybe some other political shenanigans. Then you look at the numbers. Bloomberg put out some numbers. Republicans who don't think January 6th was a legitimate action, who don't think that the election was stolen, are still voting Republican. Even for people who believe January 6th was righteous or was Antifa, was Biden or whatever nonsense, and that the election was stolen, they'll still vote for those people because they think Democrats are more dangerous. Yeah, that's the danger of this two-party system where if you have your team colors, your team can screw up. But you're like, still, I'm definitely not voting for that other team.

And if you look around the world, or even if you look at our own founding design, there's nothing about two parties or Democrats or Republicans in the Constitution. George Washington warned against partisanship on his way out. John Adams called political parties and evil across the land. James Madison talked about how factions that don't shift are exactly what we should be guarding against. And the current two party system didn't come about until decades after the country was founding in the 1860s. So I'm actually going to do a little bit of his history because I didn't know any of this stuff until 2020 myself. So the two parties system is around the Civil War forward. The two parties

were relatively ideologically similar it was like vanilla and french vanilla for a long time that changed in 1964 when the civil rights act of 64 was passed and then the south flipped from democrat to republican the party started to diverge then uh but then you had Doctrine gets repealed by the Reagan administration in like 87. Cable news hits the scene. Fox and NBC arrive in 96. Facebook arrives in 2004. So you wind up with this divergence that starts getting more and more dramatic between urban and rural areas to the point where we're now, you know, like we're in different versions of reality. But if you look around the world, we are just about unique and anomalous and having this dysfunctional two-party system like the uk has five or six

parties germany has seven sweden has eight and those multi-party systems are much more resilient right now we're uniquely subject to authoritarianism because if you have one major party lose it shit then everyone falls in line under that and then if they win then they they control everything that's why we have such pendular swings in our politics and this kind of desperation for balance you know it is the explanation behind the phenomenon of why an incumbent president in their first term generally loses midterm seats with a couple of exceptions. It's because people are desperate for balance because of this binary system.

Now, when you talk about these other countries, remember where we are. So people automatically reject that because we're the best. This is not a suggestion that we have to become a parliamentary structure, okay? There is nothing inimical to our constitution to have more parties because there's nothing in our constitution has anything to do with parties we have no law that has anything to do they're made up this two-party system is totally made up and it's terrible design and except for them except for them except for you mean the people in the parties yeah oh yeah yeah because it's so much easier why would i want to make the case and have to compete with him about a minute, a minimum standard of living for people and a stipend about how you why would I want to compete with that idea, which I probably don't even understand when I could just say, do you trust this guy? You trust this guy with this kind of crazy background in Columbia Law Review can't trust those people so the two-party system uh it it totally is about control to your point yeah it's like i just don't want to compete and we're sitting right now in new york

city it's a one-party town this is more or less a one-party state really it's a blue state now although it andrew knows all this this state sets up exactly like the country population centers all blue everywhere else oh yeah if you go to Western New York, it gets red quick. Maybe 50 of them at a 62 are red all day long. Oh, if you look at a geographic map. Population centers are blue, just like the country. If you look at a geographic map of New York State

or the United States, it gets very, very red just about everywhere. Yeah. I mean, that's accurate, totally. And so why? Well, also people being forced into those things. And we don't have to change anything to have more parties except the hold of the parties on the current system. My notion is clearly the parties are at the root of the problem and not the people necessarily, but the dynamic. We need more

parties or no parties. No parties is not an option. More parties is doable, except for what? What are the barriers to entry? Except for the mechanics. So when I try and explain this to people, I say, look, the worst possible number of parties you can have is one, because that's authoritarianism. The second worst is two. So, you know, and two is breaking down and not working. So we need to get to three minimum. Now, it's very difficult for a third party to compete in certain races because of the way the election mechanics are set up, because the parties just say, look, it's all about

control. So we're going to say that we have this party primary system. And then in order to get on the ballot, you have to operate through these parties. So the obstacle number one is they make it hard to get on the ballot if you're not a Democrat or Republican. That's why the vast majority of political candidates like myself in 2018 would just look up at the system and be like, well, like running as a Democrat, which by the way, I thought I was a Democrat. It turns out that maybe I wasn't so much. I thought I was, I mean, you know, I'd been a Democrat for a long time. So it was very natural for me to choose to run as a Democrat. But you know, 95% of political figures aren't trying to

remake the system from scratch. They'll be like, hey, I'm running for office. And so the party system makes it so I pretty much have to run as a Democrat or Republican in order to even get on the ballot and compete. So that's obstacle number one. And the Ford party, which I'm happy to say, by the time you listen to this, will be the third biggest political party in the country by resources. How so? Brag a little bit. Oh, sure thing. So our budget is closing in on the eight figure mark of, you know, like 10 million annualized. Where are you getting the money from?

eight-figure mark of, you know, like 10 million annualized. Where are you getting the money from? Patriots, leaders who realize that the system's broken and needs to get fixed. You know, 425,000 Americans donated $40 million to my presidential campaign. And it turns out that some of them agree with me that we need a third party. What do you have as a membership number right now? I mean, our social media followings in the hundreds of thousands, our mailing list is around the same number. And what are you doing with the money? We are building towards a national tour and our first ever national convention,

you're very much invited, that's going to be taking place early next year. And we'll be on the ballot in 15 states. We're supporting a bunch of candidates that I can talk. So you're going to start off with national, but you're going to start off with state races because you'll be after the midterms. Yeah, we're actually playing in some of the midterm races right now. And it's not that people are running on the forward party. They can be running as a Democrat or Republican if they're aligned with certain things. So how do you get where you can compete with Democrats and Republicans in the states that matter, bigger population states? Is ranked choice voting something that is essential?

And explain why. All right. So the mechanics are the first thing you have to change. And this is one reason why anyone who wants a third party should get behind the forward party, regardless of whether you're a libertarian you're uh green you're anything because right now the system is set up to prevent any competition it turns out that again it's not in the constitution so it's at the state level and there are 25 states that allow you to change to nonpartisan open primaries and rank choice voting via ballot initiative now this sounds like oh yang this will never work it has already

happened in one state in alaska and if you're a political junkie you've probably read the accounts of the fact that alaska like the sarah palin race and some other stuff are open primaries top four people get through regardless of party so anyone in a lot of states do it in local races yeah yeah well a lot of states use rank choice voting in local races, including New York City. Right. So the big- And why is it good, by the way? Well, the nonpartisan open primaries means that everyone can vote for anyone of any party,

which means that if I'm an elected official, it's not that I just need to please the 10% in the corner, who, by the way, tend to be kind of extreme and even loony. But it's 51% have to get behind me in some form. And Ranked Choice Voting is helpful because it encourages majority appeal. It makes it so that you get the most votes as first place. I get the most votes or I get a lot of second place votes. How does the system work with ranked choice in most places so that it's to the benefit of more candidates? All right, check it out. So there were a number

of races that we just saw, let's say the Ohio Republican primary, where the winner might have gotten 25% of the vote because there were like, you know, four or five candidates. In ranked choice voting, what would happen is like, let's say J.D. Vance in this example, I think got something like 25%. That doesn't mean he wins just because he got more first place votes than everyone else. Then you'd look at the other candidates' second place votes and you'd add them to the candidates. So let's say there are five candidates. You would get rid of the fifth candidate's votes and then allocate his or her second choice to the other candidates until someone gets to 50.1%,

which I'm going to suggest is a much more sensible standard. Because if 50.1% of us had a candidate on our ballot, that means that a majority of us are cool with this person getting elected. Whereas if you just have a winner with 25%- Just plays to the extreme, plays to that slice of the most angry people in that district. Yeah. And so people probably know I'm no Trump fan. If you'd had ranked choice voting in the Republican primary in 2016, Trump probably does not win because what happened was Trump got his 35 to 40%. And then Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and everyone else split up the other 60 to 65%. So it looked like he was crushing because it was like 38% to 16%. But it could be that if everyone who didn't like Trump

would have preferred any other candidate to Trump, then, you know, maybe someone who's a little bit more moderate gets through. The Republicans use this process to choose Glenn Youngkin as their gubernatorial candidate in Virginia. So it tends to reward moderation. And the nonpartisan open primaries also reward broad accountability and majority appeal. One of the problems in New York state is that it has closed primaries. So only Democrats can vote in the day. You know, it just reinforces allegiance.

The forward party is a better option than Democrat or Republican because? Well, the great thing is you can vote for anyone you want as long as they're good. You know what I mean? And at the same time, fight for a system that you know will actually work. What are you for that they're not? We're for genuine competition and dynamism in the political system. So this ballot initiative that passed in Alaska, it's now up in Nevada and Missouri for this November. So if you can imagine liberating another four US senators and party primaries, that could be the difference in saving democracy or not. But the Democrats in Nevada came out against this ballot

initiative. And you ask like, why the heck? And now we know the real reason is they just don't like competition. But they had to actually put forward a rationale. So the rationale they put forward was rank choice voting is too confusing, dot, dot, dot for voters of color, which people then heard that and were like, hey, that's racist. And then the Democrats in Nevada were like, no, you're racist. I mean, it's really, it doesn't make any sense that they should have answered the real thing, which is like, look, we talked to our consultants and they said that we prefer the current system because we control it better. We'll know who's going to win. We know who the electorate is. So if you're a forward party, you know you're for genuine competition, which even if you're an avid Democrat, in my view,

you should be supporting this because it would make the Democratic Party more responsive, accountable, modern. Where do people go to learn about the party? Forwardparty.com. Or you can go to andreyang.com, which will get you to forwardparty.com. But we are the fastest growing party in the country. We're going to change history. Everyone knows this system is not working. And the loyalty to the parties really, like it's very, very paper thin after you get past the people who benefit from this system on the inside? You know, I've been doing a lot of thinking about the weaponization of the word elite, because it's weird. You know, I always thought that that was part of the American dream, you know, for people like, you know, your parents, my grandparents and parents, you know, was,

boy, we really hope that with opportunity and education, our offspring can do amazing things here and be rich and live lives and in comfort and access. That was the dream. The dream was to be elite. Now, it's seen as a bad thing. But I think what it's really touching on is division. And the more I started to look at it, everything plays to this current system. Even the media, and I don't mean that as a pejorative. I really believe that America's media is a signature blessing of the democracy. It's better than any other media culture I've been around. And as you know, I've been around. But, but, it's easier to cover two.

And it's easier to fan the flames. That sounded like a football. That sounded like a football. Well, to cover two. I'm not a fan of that defense, but I understand why they use it. You know, it's easier to cover broader spaces than it is specific instructions,

you know, in defense of an assignment of another player. And in the media covering politics, ideas are hard. Plans are hard. Ranked choice voting is hard to cover. You being a bad guy and scary because you're Asian and smart and like math, that is easier for me. Those don't seem like very scary things there, Chris. The math scares me. Numbers. The idea of fanning the flames of,

does Yang get a fair shot because he's asian or not that's easier than let's break down this plan versus that plan so the binary system creates flames and it is easier for the media to fan flames and put them out so it's a harder job but i don't think three parties is enough though i think you need at least four or five. Well, you agree with me and political scientists who've looked at this. They said that the ideal number of political parties in the United States of America would be somewhere between four and seven. And if you think about it, right now, the current Democratic Party should be two parties. Absolutely.

And what do you think they'd be? What would the breakdown be? We all know. It's like the progressives and the moderate Democrats. I mean, those are distinct parties. The Republican Party should be two parties. There should be the Trumpist conservatives and then the Romney-esque moderate establishment Republicans. The latter camp has about 35% of the party, according to the numbers I've seen. He was thinking about starting a patriot party. I just

don't know that he has the incentive to do it beyond the hype. Well, the problem for everyone, Chris, is that no one's incentives are served by heading in this direction, except for the people of the United States. You know, like it's one reason why I'm an interesting figure for this is because I think you know me well enough to know that I'm not really driven by, you know, like elective office. You know, I'm just driven by trying to help people and set us up for success. And so if you look at anyone who's in good standing in one of the two major parties, they might, you know, talk shit about leaving and starting another party, but like they're unlikely to actually do it. But again, you're looking at a market where 62% of people want an alternative.

And so if we build it, it's just going to grow like a weed. I mean, as an entrepreneur, I can see it really clearly and it's already happening. How it's already happening. So let's reconcile that with the idea that the polarization seems to be getting worse and worse.

It seems that we're becoming more tied to extremes, amplified by social media that exaggerates the actual numbers behind. One of my big frustrations when I was working at CNN, and it wasn't specific to CNN, would be, hmm, people online are unhappy. How many? How many don't like what I said? Or how many are confused. And maybe you would have 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 tweets. Okay. That number is misleading, but let's say it isn't. 20,000 would drive an entire news cycle, even though I had millions watching me and

there are, you know, how many millions that are out there absorbing this stuff. That plays into it also. So how do you reconcile that people want this when it seems that the trend is more polarization, more balkanization, see it with the January 6th, you see it with reproductive rights? How do you reconcile it? Well, first, couldn't agree more that Twitter is not real life. And you can have very, very visible, loud, emotional five to 10,000 people on Twitter drive a media response, drive a news cycle. But it doesn't reflect the will or the experience of, you know, 90% plus of Americans. So again, as a numbers guy, people who are far left progressive, that number is something like 10 to 15 percent. And those tend to be the most visible, prominent, consistently online on Twitter and the like. On the other side, the very conservative segment is 25 to 30 percent. So those are your bookendsends that leaves 60% in the middle. And the reason why the Ford party is growing so quickly is that most of the 60% is relatively disenchanted with the current setup. And a lot of them have checked out, frankly, they've just been like, hey, like, you know,

this stuff makes me sad. So if you can bring to them, like, look, this is a genuine solution, an antidote. If we make these changes, our leaders will actually reflect what we want, like, you know, that they won't have the same incentive to bomb throw. So this movement's growing quick because we're literally appealing to 60% of us. Now, will that get reflected in social media numbers? Probably not for, you know, a little while that we are past 100 000 followers in a number of months so that's pretty quick and just on one social media platform so across platforms is more the people listening to this are probably thinking it's like wow this sounds like a better approach than the other stuff i've heard because

uh you know i've looked at the numbers within the democratic party it's just not going to happen for a number of reasons within the republican Republican Party, the Republican Party has lost its way. We need a third party. But I agree with you that I wouldn't even stop at three parties. Why do you believe that the Republican Party has lost its way more than the Democratic Party? So, you know, the Republican Party has taken on this anti-institutional zeal, which in a way, I get, you know, like, there are a lot of Trump voters who are like, look, I just wanted to stick a thumb in the eye of the establishment, because, you know, I just feel like they're corrupt. Drain the swamp was a very appealing message. And again, only 15% of Republicans believe in the

media, even their own media. So, you know, so on the tough side, it's kind of rife with, you know, proneness to conspiracy theories and some other disinformation. But that anti-institutional energy is in contrast with Democrats who've now taken on the role as like apologists for the declining fumbling institutions. And so then if you fast forward to 24, it's like, which of these forces would you bet on? Like, you'd probably bet on the anti-institutional zeal, especially in a time of inflation and everyone being pissed off and ornery, and the rest of it. If you remember Trump's election in 2016, Trump kind of overcame the establishment Republicans. And now the Republican Party's incentives have gone very negative.

You know, there's a South Carolina congressman who lost because he voted to impeach Trump. He was one of the 10. Those 10 members of Congress, I think four of them have retired, one of them just lost, like they're an endangered species. That number was much higher than 10, literally like minutes or hours before the vote. But what happened was all of those members got death threats. And like, I know some of them. And so when they voted yes to impeachment, they had to go into hiding. They had to like get their families into hiding. So if you're like you're faced with that sort of choice, that this is the darkness of the Republican Party. Is that like, are there good people in the Republican Party writ large? Like, of course, yeah. Are there good representatives or elected officials in the Republican Party? Yeah. But their incentives are very, very negative. But they are, you know, a word I want to bring back is regular. The idea of being regular is very resonant with people that they see the Democrats as destroying everything that they used to call normal, but that is regular, right down to gender. And when I talk to people and I'll say, well, if somebody tells you that

they may look like me, but feel female, and that's who they are, they're just in the wrong body, do you have to believe that person to be crazy? And they say, no, no. I mean, look, you be whatever you want to be. If that's how you feel, I just don't want kids to be having that surgery and Democrat. They ascribe extreme to the Democrats

and they see their defense of normal as appearing extreme. And I think Trump did a very good job of isolating that and even exaggerating it. But what do you say to the Democrats in terms of the fights they're choosing? You know, look, AOC, I believe, has been greatly marginalized by that party, as I knew Pelosi and her people would do. I knew AOC was going to lose as soon as the real game started and the media could love her as much as they want because of how she looks and how she's provocative and she represents a lot of diversity and things that the media vibes off of. But

eventually she would be exposed. What do you say to the Democrats in terms of why they're taking the beating they are and why they have a beating coming down the road right now. This is a symptom of the two party dynamic, really, because if you're a Democrat, you can pick and choose some of like the, you know, looniest or most reprehensible Republican behaviors and say, look at these guys like it is a terrible. So the Republicans do the exact same thing. They'll be like, hey, like, we'll pick and choose a couple of these ideas that just seem like off the wall and zany and caricature Democrats as socialists or like, you know, policing language or trying to educate your kids in a certain way or like, you know, whatever the issue is. lies somewhere in the middle where it's like to your you know uh thoughts about gender identity it's like you know like we should have a conversation about like an appropriate age to be able to make like particular but but then if you even raise your hand and say that there'll be certain parts of the democratic party that will attack you as being uh anti-trans or

homophobic or whatever it is because we're not open to an ideas-based discussion because everything's binary. Yeah, yeah. But the idea being that there is more value in me exposing that you're saying something that you're not supposed to say that gets punished in the binary system. It's why Democrats only cancel Democrats. They don't cancel Republicans. Republicans look at the democrats and say yeah keep it keep eating yourselves we love this did you see the ryan grimm story in the intercept uh last week about progressive organizations uh self-destructing because of uh infighting and uh like you know accusations within the organization the rest of it you should check it out because it

was like it spoke to the reality of a lot of folks i know who run those organizations or if you run a non-profit where um there's this kind of uh self-defeating ideology on that side where you know no organization is going to be racially sensitive but not sensitive enough inclusive enough etc etc and so leaders will say that they're spending 90 percent of their time managing internal stuff instead of doing the work of organizations. And then the people on the left will say to you, well, Andrew, that's how change works. You know, things have been wrong for so long. How do you think you make them right?

You know, it's going to have to be heavy handed if we want things to get better. What do you say? Oh, you know, what I'd say is, well, there are two things. There's one, the mission of the organization, and then two, like trying to improve the organization's inner workings. And it depends upon the nature of the organization you're a part of. But if you're a part of an organization that's fighting for something that you believe in, let's say addressing climate change or reproductive rights or whatnot, like sometimes you have

to try and prioritize the organization's work first in practice and give your organization a chance to improve while you're actually accomplishing whatever goals that are being invested in. This is as someone who's run organizations, both for profit and nonprofit. The problem is that I could easily beat you up for being incrementalist about things that should be absolutist. What do you mean mission of the organization before diversity and inclusion and respect for women in the workplace? You're saying that that's going to be incremental? It's like you know some of the people who... know some of these people who... Well, but look, I mean, my frustration with what I think is very valuable in terms of addressing workplace culture and how women have been marginalized, which is

demonstrable a hundred different ways, is that where's the follow-up on the organizations that had the bold-faced names go down about what's changed and what hasn't. What is systematically different now, systemically different in those places that make them better, make them more fair? Nobody does that reporting. Nobody follows up because the bold-faced names get all the attention. You say it's in the name of change, but it isn't. And they will attack the idea of incremental change as not enough. The other big piece of this is that we're talking generally about organizations that are populated by certain types of professionals and college graduates and the rest of it. And know, it's one reason why the democratic party seems like the party of the urban educated

cultural, uh, you know, uh, elite and it's, it doesn't, it doesn't feel relevant. I get called soft a lot. You know, look, when you're in the media, let alone when you're in the media and your name is Cuomo. I mean, obviously there's something paradoxical about that and that's, you know, something I've had to deal with for some 51 years and that's okay. But you get things ascribed to you, right? So most people will think combination of being journalist, you know, whether it was ABC, they forget I was at Fox, but ABC, CNN, Cuomo, you're a lefty. And soft comes very soon thereafter. You have no toughness. You want everything easy. You want everybody to be blamed for anything in your life that doesn't happen well.

But then there is this reciprocal axe that they swing, which is, and you guys are vicious. You're vicious, you people on the left. You Antifa and the Black Lives Matter. You're blowing up all these places and you're beating up everybody that you don't like. And, you know, you're scaring everybody and you want to take our guns. It's very interesting how scared people are of each other in this country right now. Look, no shame in my game. I've been using AG1 for over five years. Why? It works, AG1 for over five years. Why? It works, it's easier, and it's less expensive. That's why. Since 2010, they've been getting their formulations right and tweaking their formulas. Why?

Because the science changes, okay? It's not like politics where people decide to believe one thing and no matter what happens with the facts, they never shift. This is the opposite. Oh, prebiotics work with probiotics, but in this way, D works with K and this type of B works with that. They have the scientists doing it. So I don't need all the bottles. I don't have to spend all the money and I don't have to figure out when to take what and why. More importantly, it's not just the regular list of vitamins. It's the extras, okay? you a list of vitamins. It's the extras, okay? The adaptogens, the prebiotics, the probiotics that support your body's universal needs, gut optimization, immune support, stress management. That's what foundational nutrition is about. And these are the people at AG1 who've been doing the work to get it right. Okay. I tell friends, I tell family, I get no complaints. Okay. If you want to take ownership of your health,

it starts with AG1. Try AG1. You get a free one year supply of vitamin D3K2 and five free AG1 travel packs. Okay. That's what happens with your first purchase. So make it. Go to drinkag1.com slash ccp. drinkag1.com slash ccp. Check it out. The Chris Cuomo Project is supported by Cozy Earth. Why?

Because I like their sheets. That's why. A lot of people don't get a good night's sleep for a lot of reasons. One of the ones that you can control is bedding. One out of three of us report being sleep deprived. Okay, well, what is it? Well, it stresses all kinds of things. But the wrong sheets can make you hot, can make you cold. I'm telling you, I don't even believe it either.

But Cozy Earth sheets breathe. And here's what I love about them. Cozy Earth's best-selling sheet is a bamboo set, okay? Temperature regulating. Gets softer with every wash. I'm not kidding you, all right? Now, so if you go to CozyEarth.com and you enter the code,

enter the code CHRIS, and you can get up to 35% off your first order. CozyEarth.com, and the code is Chris. When you talk about why we need multiple parties, I mean, this is a big reason why it's so easy to demonize and dehumanize people on the other side, when in reality, and I've met, as you can imagine, and you've done yourself, I've met thousands, tens of thousands of Americans, Republican, Democrat, rural, urban, and most everyone is a good person, wants the same things. I mean, it's all of the tropes about how like the people are good and like then, you know, the leadership or the system really doesn't measure up. I mean, that's the way you genuinely feel

if you go out there. But the dynamic you're describing is very much, it's a function of the polarized political environment compounded with a polarized media environment compounded by the social media environment. So the question is, how do we get our way out of this? And so you fix each in turn, like you fix the political incentives. Can you get out of it? Or is this who we are and where we are well it it's who our institutions are trying to make us become and then the question is whether we choose that for ourselves and there are so many americans i mean you know a million of them where they they're looking at this and they're taking a step back and they're saying hey whatever's going on on is getting crazier and crazier and less and less productive.

And boy, would I love for there to be a media company that I could trust to be politically independent, which, by the way, may be free agent here from Chris Cuomo's living room. We're an and. I want people to go out, get their media, get their stuff. What I want to do here when i'm lucky enough to have somebody like you then it's easy this is this is a home run what i don't like about and you're right you're right so i'm i'm wrong in that people are okay with the media they're not okay with the media but they're not okay with anything and i try to push back on cynicism and stick to skepticism you know let. Let's deal with where the real problems are and they're not. I don't know that people aren't increasingly unhappy with the media because

they are increasingly interested in confirmation bias. They want to hear what they want to hear. And in that regard, Andrew, I don't believe the problem is the media. I believe the problem is the consumer. I think I'll just use myself as an example. It's like I've seen my media consumption habits change a lot over the last number of years. And when I've talked to people, they say to me, you know, one person will say to me, you know where I go for my news about America? The BBC. Because. A disinterested observer.

Yeah, yeah. They'll like come at it from an angle. Like I feel like i can trust them to be uh objective so i think um there's a massive thirst for trustworthy information um i think there's a massive thirst for a new approach to politics that doesn't demonize doesn't hate like it it humanizes it says look like we can disagree about something that you feel strongly about and this is by the way like the way chris and i grew up it's like you used to be able to disagree with

something very strongly about something but you could sit break bread with them agree to disagree like me you know maybe even work together like maybe even try and get something done together that's what's gotten lost where now if i sit with you and you and i disagree on something then i have somehow done something very very bad by legitimizing you or platforming you and and the rest of it which by the way is like you know a terrible way to live and coulter okay nobody's going to confuse her with being a lefty she comes out and attacks this dinesh de'Souza radical provocateur, okay, on the right, and makes just a very obvious point about how bullshit one of his offerings was. She gets exposed by other members of the right as being a fraud and not a real righty. When I saw that, I was like, wow, this is just sports. This is just sport now.

This is being a Jet fan where you say, hey, let's face it. Whoever they draft, as soon as the person gets out of this guy, they're going to leave because this team sucks. The organization does not win. Oh, you're not a Jet fan. You went bad on the Jets. That's where our politics is. Oh, you're not a Jet fan. You went bad on the Jets. That's where our politics is. And Colter being called a rhino? Imagine a sports league that had two teams.

You know, like, do you think those fan bases wouldn't hit each other's guts after a minute? I mean, that's exactly what happened. It's like, I just got to play you over and over again. So when you start realizing that politics is tribal, then you realize, too, we need more fucking tribes you know what i mean like you like having these two tribes is going to lead us to literal civil war and ruin it will i mean no exaggeration so you need to break it up if you had five tribes then by the way the two tribes in the extreme would probably become a little less extreme just because they have to compete a little bit.

You know, it's like they can't just be in Sydney all the time. And then the middle 60 percent of us or so would actually have a place to go and homes and be able to sit with people and agree to disagree. How is it that the majority has become less powerful than the minority? It's because of the incentive system, man. It's because if you have a closed party primary where 10% of people will vote, then the political figure doesn't need to worry about what the other 90% think. If you live in New York City, do you have to care about what the Republicans think? No. The independents? No. The non-voters? like do you have to care about what the republicans think no the independents no the non-voters no like you drill down the mayoral primary i was a part of 900 000 voters uh people can look at that

and be like that's actually higher turnout than normal this city has eight and a half million people so 900 000 was like 10.5 11 percent of people which means our current mayor got like four percent of voters so that's not a rep, you know, that doesn't represent most of us. And there are versions of that happening all over the country. If you're listening to this, you might be checked out of your local congressional district, because if you're in the minority party, you have no say. And even if you're in the majority party, you most of the time have no say. And it doesn't have to be this way. You know, there's this understanding that, well, this is just how it is. No, this is how we made it. Yeah. And this is the thing that frustrates

me the most, Chris, is that there's so many people in an era, by the way, of very, very rapid change, they look at this and be like, can't do anything about it. And you're like, are you kidding me? It's like, we're watching our country sink into the mud and be like, oh, can't do anything about it. And especially because people will say, well, look well look it's not the parties it's what the parties reflect their symptoms okay fine but even if they are a symptom and not the actual illness they are a fever yeah okay yeah and you don't get better from things while the body is heating itself up to try to kill what is inside of it and they're absolutely fundamental to the problem. So, okay. Yeah. It's not the part I argue it is. Okay. But let's say I'm wrong. All right. I'm

big on arguing in the alternative, even if it's not the parties per se, and they are a symptom, they are the major symptom. And if you were to change it and rank choice voting is probably going to be an easier sell than changing the money game. If all candidates got the same money and you found a way to deal with the incumbency effect, then that would be a great change also. But with the current jurisprudential thinking in this country, the money, what we call dark money, is totally legitimate and I don't think is going to be removed as a form of speech. So you're not doing it through the money. Well, dark money is everywhere.

In order to get rid of it, you would need to repeal Citizens United, which... Is Supreme Court law that said... It's funny because Citizens United was really just a name proxy on it. It's really not what that organization was. But dark money is just... So for you guys at home, dark money is just money where you don't have your name to it. And it goes into organizations that are nonspecific. So it's not for Andrew Yang.

It's not even for the forward party. It's for a group called a PAC or a super PAC that has a certain legal designation where it doesn't have to tell you where it gets its money. And so it's called dark because you can't see whose money it is, but they are tremendously influential in campaigns. Yeah. I mean, the money is going to be very hard to get out. You need a constitutional amendment, which would require you to go state to state. There are people who are trying to do this. I don't think you could get a constitutional amendment today to make America the name of the country. I shit you not. No, no. I know what you mean. Because think about it, because somebody would come out and say, America, by the way,

is the name of this Italian guy named Vespucci, who really wasn't so nice to then locate some group that he exploited. I don't know that you could get a constitutional amendment that America is the name of this country. Yeah, you're not wrong. Like changing the money game in some ways is going to be, to your point, harder than changing the voting process, changing the nonpartisan open primaries, and ranked choice voting. You know, one of the interesting things I've experienced over the last number of months, Chris, which I think you'll enjoy, started the forward party, we're going to be the third biggest

political party by resources. The early adopters of the forward party have tended to be moderate white men are the early adopters. A lot of them are disaffected Republicans. College educated, non-college educated? Generally college educated, the early adopters. So what's happened was there are a lot of folks who are self-identified as Republicans until relatively recently. And then they see the Trump thing and they're like, not loving this. And they also feel like the Democrats want nothing to do with them. loving this. And they also feel like the Democrats want nothing to do with them.

Because unfortunately, now in America, everything's taken on this identitarian tinge. So it's like, you know, if you're like that identitarian, it's true, man, it's, it's, it's dark. I mean, it's screwing us up pretty bad. So then these people, these moderate white men are like, okay, like, I feel politically homeless and adrift and orphaned. And then they see the forward party and be like, okay, like, yeah, this is totally what i what i am in part because they also uh don't want to be yelled at and don't want to yell at other people like you know that they see what's the forward party uh you know like we're for grace and tolerance so it's like look like get along and the last thing we would ever do is hold someone's identity so now the lefties come to you i forgot about this i'm off my game and they they say, Andrew, you're killing us.

You're only going to take our people. You say, no, my early adopters are Republicans. Yeah, I don't know. Independents and Republicans. Yeah, I don't know. You say that. You're going to cannibalize Democrats. You're going to make us weak.

And you're going to make the other side strong. You're hurting us. So what I'd say is, look, Democrats would be more effective in a system where they actually had to compete for the general public's votes and not just answer to primary voters. But for folks who are more change oriented or even, you know, like far lefty progressives who are practical, I look at them and I say, look, do you think that this two party system is going to deliver for you on climate change, mental health, education, anything? As someone who's dug into the system and the numbers, the answer is no, categorically. Rural voters are slightly overweighted because of the way our system is set up, which will not change unless you get Wyoming and North Dakota to sign onto it, which they never will. In order for Democrats to have a governing majority, they would need to achieve 54% of the popular vote in multiple cycles, which they did not even do in 2020.

You can get more people voting in blue areas, won't make a whit of difference. All you're going to do is run up the score in the popular vote, will not matter. So when you start digging the numbers, you say, look, this system will not deliver for you on any of the changes that you're trying to make. So let's try and change the system itself to be more functional and representative. And then if you want, after we make the switch, let's say, to open primaries and rank choice voting, if the forward party seems too, you know, like centrist and moderate for you, then start your own party. And then at that point, you'd be able to compete. But right now you can't compete. Right now you're vying for control of the Democratic Party, which,

you know, it's like you'll get a couple of wins here and there in terms of like isolated congressional races, but you will not actually accomplish anything significant on your agenda under the system. Biden is going to be beat up with personal stuff. Okay, let's leave that to everybody else. Inflation, gas prices. My contention is this talk in the media about he's going to go with the saudis and i think it's a red herring meaning it's a distraction from reality i don't think he can do anything about inflation or gas prices because one look they were going to put money into

this economy during covid no matter who it was all you have to do is Google and you'll see that Trump was very much in favor of giving the same kinds of money that Biden did and the Democrats did. It was McConnell who was against it. And inflation, therefore, is going to be only brought down by the Treasury, by the Fed, and that is not political. So he can't do anything there. On gas, gas is American companies and refineries making money that they didn't make during the pandemic after shareholders told them, increase your dividends, do less in terms of sourcing oil. So it's not about the Saudis. It's about business and them making money, which is capitalism. And I don't think he can fix either. Yeah, he's in a tough spot.

Now, is any of that wrong, by the way? Is the analysis off? And if so, how? No, the analysis is spot on in the sense that these are market forces. Can he get foreign supply that somehow brings down the price of gas at the pump? Maybe at the margins, maybe at the margins. And why at the margins? Because we're not OPEC dominated anymore.

We're putting out a lot of our own stuff. So it's not like that's the main faucet. Yeah. I mean, some of the numbers I saw where they released some from the strategic reserve and like the net impact of that, they thought might be five to 10 cents a gallon for a particular period of time. And we're like $2 off where people needed to be

in order to not be worried paycheck to paycheck. Yeah. Same thing with the gas tax. It's like that order amounted to 10 to 15 cents, which by the way, I mean, at this point I'd consider it, I mean, you know, like just to show that you're after it. But I think that inflation is on everyone's minds, you get reminded of it daily, every time you pass a gas station, like I had a friend who drives a real gas guzzler, things were fucking enormous. And he paid like 200 bucks for it. So, you know, I mean, notice that. So the Democrats are going to take a drubbing in November, almost certainly lose the House, probably lose the Senate, though there are a couple of glimmers there that, you know, that they might wind up deadlocked. And one thing I do want to talk about is that the balance of the Senate may rest in Utah of all places because of this fascinating race there where you have an independent senate candidate named evan mcmullen um and then the republican incumbent mike lee so you think to yourself okay like

republican wins utah's a red state but uh evan talked the democrats into not running a candidate in utah so you literally have like just the independent and the republican and evan mcmullen's like a um former cia officerin's like a former CIA officer. He's essentially a moderate Republican. You know him, bald guy, white guy, ran for president on the margin. Super, super smart. And this was clever because what he's doing is,

so he's got the Democrats by proxy, but he doesn't own them as a party and he doesn't want to because he'd have big trouble in Utah. And so what he's doing is trying to cannibalize the republicans enough to beat lee while having the democrats held in abeyance and therefore he's their default candidate it's very clever yeah so the balance of the senate because you can imagine 2023 everyone comes back and it's a 50 50 senate again and evan mcmullin is like the independent in the middle. He could be like the new Joe Manchin. I find this to be one of the most fascinating opportunities for

a third party like us. So we're backing Evan in a very big way. And if we get him in, and then let's say hypothetically, another Senator goes independent, like you could have a fulcrum in the US Senate as early as January. But you can't get past the filibuster. So how do you get anything done? Well, what would happen is that, you know, either side. Do you can't get past the filibuster. So how do you get anything done? Well, what would happen is that- Do you think they should get rid of it, by the way? I do. I mean, the filibuster is another made up rule. But then a minority has no juice. So one of the problems right now is they both have these blockers that make it so you don't have to sit down and meaningfully negotiate. If you were like, oh, snap, they're going to be able

to pass this thing, then maybe we should get in there and try and, you know, like influence legislation. Right. But the flip is if I have the majority and you're the minority, then I never need to sit down and talk to you. Well, I think it would completely change the dynamic because I think that if that's the way it laid out, then you'd have people within each parties like, you know, not necessarily being all on the same page, and they'd have more independence, really, like, what we're seeing right now is just like, you know, like these, the these blocks, that every once in a while, I can get something done, because they get every single person. And then you can't get anything, you know, through a filibuster ever. I just feel like at this time in American life, we shouldn't be tying our own hands. And the filibuster is, you know, as you can tell, I'm not a fan of made up rules like the filibuster is a rule of Senate made up a while ago. How do you change the power structure in a country when the people with power don't want

to change it? Well, most Americans know it's not working. And if you had this, let's say, hypothetically, for independent senators in the middle, that represented probably the point of view of most Americans, then you could have like a different political atmosphere than you have right now. And you can make these changes around the country in ways big and small. I mean, I'm going to suggest the U.S. Senate is like, you know, I mean, that's pretty enormous. is big and small. I mean, I'm going to suggest the US Senate is like, you know, I mean, that's pretty enormous. One of the things we haven't talked about that we can leave for the next conversation is what the heck's going to happen in 24. Because if you wind up with a Biden Trump rematch, which some people are projecting, 58% of Americans don't want either of those guys. So then all of a sudden, you're looking at like the biggest appetite for some kind of alternative

unity ticket, or a third party candidate probably in our lifetimes. What's the chance that you get into that race? There's a very high chance that I get involved in the sense of the forward party is going to be involved. One thing that we're working on is having a third party nomination process so that if there are people that want to provide an alternative to the two major parties, like you can get to know them. You can like coalesce around people, like have a real process real process by the way chris this would be the most fascinating media thing in the world check it out trump runs stomps on mike pence and chris christie and some other people like you know some people will turn to that oh if de santis runs then it's not a stomping

because that's actually competitive but i don't think de santis runs against trump but we can come back to this um maybe no democratic primary of joe reups. Do you think he does? So here's Andrew Yang's predictions with some inside knowledge. So we'll see if I'm right. I think Trump declares in October of this year before the midterm so he can take credit for the midterms. And then from what I've heard, that that's actually going to spur Joe to want to run again because he thinks he's the only one who can defeat Trump. Do you think he should? No, but who can defeat Trump. Do you think he should? No, but I think he will. Do you think he can?

Do I think he can defeat Trump a second time? No, I don't. Which is one reason why I don't think he should. And who is the best Democrat then? Okay, so here's your problem if you're a Democrat. Joe Biden, historically unpopular, will be 82 years old in 2024. You'd like someone fresher if if you got them vice president kamala harris pulls five points worse than joe so you don't want kamala to to be your candidate how do democrats say no to a woman of color this herein lies the problem which is why i think you wind up

with joe again because if kamala is not it then you wind up with Joe again. Because if Kamala is not it, then you wind up with a competitive primary. Kamala is in that primary. Pete's in that primary. McLovin Char's in that primary. Seems like Elizabeth Warren's in that primary. There'll be some new figures, some governor figures. But meanwhile, you have Trump coming up the other side. And so do you think the Democrats are going to want this competitive, fractious primary in the face of that? Probably not, especially because you don't know who emerges. And the candidates I just named, who I ran with, all have flaws. I mean, we all know. It's like none of them's like, oh, if we've got that person, then we're golden. And so I think you wind up with Joe. I like that idea about Trump, the strategy,

or really the tactic of declaring in October, why would Trump run again when there's a good chance he loses? Well, I think he looks at the writing on the wall and is like, ooh, if inflation stays this high and everyone's ticked off and Joe is going to be my opponent, I've got 150 million plus in the bank. I've got 60 to 65% of the Republican base who's plus in the bank. I've got 60 to 65% of the Republican base who's loyal to me. This would be like the greatest redemption tour. I think he thinks he can beat Joe and I happen to think he's right. And so that's why he runs. I mean, he's got everything lining up for him. You think he picks DeSantis as his running mate? I think there's a good chance that DeSantis winds up on the ticket. Yes.

Do you see DeSantis as formidable? I do. I think DeSantis is the only one who could defeat Trump in a Republican primary, but I also think that it would be a bloodbath and Ron knows this. So one thing I'd heard is that Ron was telling some of his donors, and this was a little while ago, it was a number of months ago, that if it's Trump, he's not going to run. I could see that. He's young. He's young. I mean, okay, check it out. If you're Ron DeSantis, you're the heir apparent, you're in your late 40s, base loves you. What are the scenarios? Trump runs and you sit it out.

Trump wins. You wind up either his VP or the heir apparent within the Republican Party. You've got a glide path. It's all to the good. Trump loses. You're the next person up and it's not a bad look. You're the next person up and it's not a bad look. You run against Trump and then it's a clash of the titans for this very, very passionate base.

Trump will have his hardcore loyalists. And even if you, Ron DeSantis, prevail over Trump in that primary, you're going to come out scarred. Some people are going to hate your guts. The base is going to be split-ish. So if you're Ron DeSantis and you look at these scenarios, what do you do? You know what I mean? You prepare to run so you can absorb energy and donors and the rest of it. And then if Trump runs, then you say, look, like, you know, I'll back Trump this time and then wait for the next cycle.

Does the forward party give DeSantis any love? The forward party is trying to create choices for people. You know, if you love the current field, then you're in good shape. But like 58% don't want Trump or Biden. If it was DeSantis, you know, maybe that number is a little bit lower, but it's still probably 50% or so. And so what we want to do is provide a platform for a unity ticket or third party candidate, uh, to come out and say, look like in a country of 330 million people, are we really going to choose between these two individuals? Let's say it is Biden and Trump combined age, 159. Like, does that make sense to anyone? You know, if anything, it would highlight the dysfunction of the two party system.

I, I, there's no question about that. Did you enjoy running enough to do it again? I'm just glad I'm still married, bro. You know, it's like my wife is like, still here, still. So, you know, I mean, there are elements of it that I enjoyed immensely. You know, I would run again, but I don't have some deep seated desire to be president United States if it's not, you know, like going to be maximally impactful for for the country. I mean, right now, I'm super pumped about building the party that 10s of millions of Americans want to exist. And I'm going to try and provide it to you. So, you know, like that, that is really

energizing. You know, I feel like I'm helping reinvigorate American democracy so that it's functional. Andrew, I'm proud of you and I'm happy for you with what you're doing and I wish you well with it. Thank you, man. Right back at you. And this is the book. If you have an open mind and an open heart, and even if you're not going to agree and you're tied to a party by tradition, if nothing else, you read this, it'll make your own arguments that you have now stronger because you'll understand a counter argument. Andrew, be well, brother, and thank you. Forward! So there you have it. Andrew Yang talking to you about the forward party. Does that resonate with you? Do you believe he is the right home for a free Asian or do you believe he is a threat? Does it help feed the notion that more parties, not just three, four, maybe even more,

that that would expand not just your choice, but the option of getting things done in government. Or not. Is he part of the problem? What do you think? I want to hear from you because we're just getting started here and I want to shape what we make this project as a function of what you want it to be. So subscribe, follow, comment, and you can call 516-412-6307. 516-412-6307 516-412-6307 Leave an email and a message I will answer some of them Here on the show in segments

And in extra segments But I'm definitely listening to them Alright, so that's what I need you to do And I appreciate that you've been doing it Free agents are coming together And making the Chris Cuomo project relevant next time.