The Chris Cuomo Project - Inside the “No Kings” Protests — and What Comes Next

Episode Date: October 23, 2025

Robert Weissman (Co-President, Public Citizen) joins Chris Cuomo following the No Kings protests of October 18, 2025 — a nationwide movement that drew an estimated five to seven million people across more than 2,700 U.S. cities in what organizers call the largest single-day protest in American history. As one of the event’s lead organizers, Weissman explains how Public Citizen, the progressive consumer-advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader, helped mobilize Americans around the message that no president — not even Donald Trump — stands above the law. Cuomo and Weissman discuss what the protests reveal about public frustration with corruption, corporate influence, and creeping authoritarianism — and whether people power can still shape policy in a second Trump term. Weissman argues that mass protest is only the beginning of a longer fight for accountability. Plus, Chris looks at the Maine Senate race between Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Graham Platner — and how Kalshi’s betting markets reflect growing doubt about Platner’s future in the race and Collins’s fading prospects as Democrats hold an edge for Senate control. Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Join Chris Ad-Free On Substack: http://thechriscuomoproject.substack.com Support our sponsors: http://kalshi.com/?utm_source=chriscuomo Bring on the good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today! Right now, Soul is offering my audience 30% off your entire order! Go to http://getsoul.com and use the code CUOMO. Sign up for your $1 per month Shopfiy trial at http://shopify.com/chrisc Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Save when you fuel up for your next road trip. Get up to 7 cents per liter in value every time you fill up at Petro Canada. That's 3 cents per liter in instant savings plus 20% more points when you link an eligible RBC card to your Petro points. Find out more at rbc.com slash Petro dash Canada. Conditions apply. There is hope. There is something happening that is not being discussed.

There is more than resistance. There is a new insistence on the majority in this country finally balancing out the money of the few against the interests of the many. What is it? You know, but no one's talking about it. So let's get after it. Chris Cuomo here. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project.

The No King's protests were the most protests in the history of the country. How do we know? Ten different metrics. And even getting into how we know is a distraction from what we do know, which is what? This is the best hope of not being limited by the fringe on the right and the fringe on the left. Did you know that the No King's participants were overwhelmingly older, meaning not young, like 35 to 55 or 60, okay? Prime of life, white people. Now, why do I tell you that because what it is is not fringe radical lefties and all those scary minorities that's not

what it was it's mega reaction formation why because they don't own what the majority of this country is the majority has been held hostage by the few and that is a lot more than a protest no kings is not just anti-trump no kings is certainly not i hate america it's not what it is it's I care about America so much that I'm willing to put it on the line and fight. Not a rebellion, not a revolution, not by a rifle and wait for ice. None of that stupid shit that just feeds outrage, but not fixing. This is the best hope for better that I have seen in years, that the majority is finally starting to come. together to mobilize against mere party advantage, the money. It's never been about red and blue.

It's always been about green. And since Citizens United, it's never been worse. The legal money is killing us. That's what drives Trump. That's what drives all of the changes to society that are against working families. It is not about socialism. It's about how we do It is not about the few. It is about the many. And the most important man in our politics today, in my opinion, is someone you have never talked about. And he's on the show right now. Public Citizen was started by Ralph Nader back in the 70s. It is now run by a man named Robert Weissman, who is fundamental to the organizing and the ambitions of no kings. How did he pull off the biggest single? day of protest in American history. Why is nobody talking about it? Because it wasn't violent. Because that's all the media cares about is what drives the outrage. That sucks. What doesn't suck is what can come next. Here is a conversation that I could not have been more excited to have. Robert Weissman, probably in my estimation, one of the most important

men in politics today. How does that hit you when I describe you that way? It doesn't really register for me, but thank you. I think, if I am that, it's because of my role of public citizen and I think we're doing really important work at a pretty desperate moment in American history. Public citizen has never been more necessary than it is right now. Ralph Nader's original dream, while he was an anti-hero for guys like me coming up and understanding politics and political science and history to fight against where the money is has never been more relevant but you're not even known for that you're known as the no kings guy right now what was the idea the origination behind no kings and did you have any expectation that you would have had a set of protests protests not riots

not violent by design or by execution, like what we just saw in America by the millions. Yeah, well, I mean, we have some history on this. We have history from the first term of mobilizing against Trump. And then now, I think with the authoritarianism, orders of magnitude more severe, there has really been this pent-up energy. I mean, I actually think our coalition was a little slow to get going. You know, we had the first big thing in the spring, it was called Hands Off, and the larger one, the first no-case.

Kings in June, which was probably five million people, even bigger than the earlier April one had been. And, you know, when Trump came in and Musk was driving things, and there was just, especially here in Washington, D.C., such intense fear and confusion, and people being isolated and wanting to do something. So there was this kind of pent up energy. And we've seen, I think, it unfurl and unleash, you know, in these big moments, people are really upset correctly and really outraged correctly and wanting to do stuff together.

So we did have what probably was the biggest single day of protest in American history this past Saturday. We know Kings, too. Seven million people by our estimate on the streets and every state, almost every congressional district, rural, urban, suburban. And did I see it coming? Yeah, we did see it coming. We knew what we had done with the first no Kings and we knew that the authoritarian

is getting worse, but we also knew that the outrage and the desire to speak back is growing larger. Let's talk about the how and then we'll talk about the why. How do you organize something like this? Especially on the left, even though it shouldn't just be the left, I think that this has got to be about the majority versus the minority because the powerful, the brokers, the players, the pundits, the pod brothers, they're all the minority. The majority is the one that wants reasonable, rational hands-off types of policies where government respects the norms, but how do you get to them? You know, we have public citizen. We're nonpartisan, but we do define ourselves as progressive, and I don't shy away from what my personal ideology is. But I don't think this is

particularly left the No Kings. It's really pro-democracy and anti-authoritarianism. I'd rather be talking about other things, to tell you the truth. But in the moment we're in, this is the most urgent thing. And so I think it's very broad. So how do we pull it together? A huge coalition of organizations, more than 300 organizations, come together to support this, the gamut from environmental groups to housing organizations,

democracy organizations, faith-based organizations, labor unions. So that's sort of the breadth of it. And then we've got organizations that have a lot of reach, have membership chapters and membership that become sort of the base for pulling it together, and we have some experience with this and built up expertise and putting on these kind of large events. It's 2,700 events. So there's individuals or groups who are hosting and sort of shepherding each one of those. Obviously, if it's, you know, in D.C. or New York, Chicago, these large events, that's a big coalition. But in some places

where, you know, you've got a thousand people turning out in a town of 2000, it's one or two people who are taking responsibility. So they volunteer themselves through our various networks. Every one of those hosts is both vetted to make sure they're legitimate, they're serious, they're going to follow our principles of nonviolence and they're going to prepare and properly. And they're also given tons of support along the way. And then the thing builds. And when you hit a certain level of energy around this and kind of breakthrough culturally, this thing starts feeding on itself. People know this is happening. They want to You don't have to do such hard recruitment because people are throwing themselves and saying,

you know, when is this event? Where is it? How do I get connected? And it took off. Now, it was, it's interesting to hear you say, this isn't even what I want to be talking about because you do have bigger systemic issues. And I happen to agree with you. I think that we both agree. If we could wave a magic wand and make one change to what is law or policy in America right now would have to begin with Citizens United because it's the legal money in our politics that's just killing us. And it's why, frankly, the Mag 7 from the S&P 500, the media, social media guys like Elon Musk are beyond regulation, beyond reach, because of their money and their influence with money on social media. But we are where we are. And to be very clear, the No King's movement

seems to be what they said progressives could not do, which is heard. cats and bring together a coalition to match MAGA, right? The narrative is the right is better at coming together fingers into a fist than the progressives are, that they would rather fight amongst themselves and tear each other down than come together to build anything. Do you believe that is changing? And if so, on what basis? Yeah, well, first, I think it's a myth in the first place. I mean, I think actually what has happened is Trump has brought the right together and all these disparate functions around his singular personality and his cult. If you actually read what the right wing says about each other, they say they're fighting all the time. They can't get along.

Why can't they be more like the left who's so consolidated and so unified? It's constant in all their chatter. Trump has kind of changed that a little bit. But I just think sometimes we give them too much kind of magical organizational oomph. They're fighting like everybody else. That said, I think on the progressive side, there's a very intentional effort now to deal with a common problem. So like there's lots of issues and this stuff, as you know, Trump is getting manifested in every area. No matter what thing you work on or what you care about, something pretty seriously bad is going on.

where you're working about the climate crisis or housing. I mean, we had a lawsuit. They tried to shut down the national hunger hotline. Why? So it's everywhere. But it's all united around this problem of this authoritarian push. And so people are recognizing that. They're working on their own thing, but they're joining together around this common problem

of an authoritarian and how we preserve and defend our democracy. And so I think there's like, there's the theme of it. And there's a recognition of the seriousness of the moment. moment. And then I think there's a lot of work that's been going on to try to get people to collaborate and, you know, we're in a pretty good space. This is sort of outside, by the way, outside the Democratic Party. Inside the party is a different question. Ah, thank you for that. There's not nonpartisan work. Thank you for that, Mr. Weissman, because my constant criticism, which is completely misunderstood

or taken out of context, and that's okay, especially when people are angry. I get it. But having grown up with one of the OG progressives, right, of Mario Cuomo. My criticism is, and I know why you draw this distinction between the movement and the party. The party is not his party anymore. It has been flailing. It has been trying to find itself in fringy ways. And I don't believe it's particularly working. And I think the results are Trump. Trump would not have beaten the OG Democrats. I don't even think he would have beaten Jesse Jackson with all the problems that Jesse had to face culturally and systemically. However, you are where you are. And my hope had been that the change would be bottom up.

That's very hard. Top down is easy. Cult of personality is easy. Trump coming in as a magnified, you know, almost a monster of political force is the easy way. Not easy to do, but it is much more simple, let's say, than it is what you're doing. And yet, I think the no-kings is being attacked by the right, falsely criticized for having been angry. No, that was George Floyd. That was BLM.

That's Antifa. That is not what we saw in these protests. I don't think it's gotten enough attention that there was no real violence anywhere with millions and millions of people. Are you surprised by that? I know you wanted it, but did you expect it this way? And why do you think it doesn't get more attention?

Is it, or in the media, do I suck that bad? That if there's violence, I jump all over it. And if there isn't, I ignore it. Well, if you, I, are the media, yes, you do suck that bad. But there's the viral clip. Go ahead. Cuomo sucks that bad. I think a few things.

first of all, you know, we were asked about this endlessly in the lead-up. What about the violence? What about the threat of violence? What about not, okay, you're committed to non-violence, but what about the other people who are going to force you in the mind? You said, you guys are hyping this thing up. It's not an accident. I mean, this is, it was the biggest thing, obviously I've ever been part of people

I think it's the biggest thing that's happened one single day protest in American history. But I've done a lot of protests. But there's never been anything I've been connected to. with as much care on security, nonviolent training, de-escalation, massive effort on a preemptive side, imagining unlikely but possible scenarios and really planning for that. And then there was a very overt, and I think I said to you in our earlier conversation in advance of the day, it wasn't just that I'm predicting this is going to be peaceful.

And then we're all saying we want peaceful events. Nonviolence is a core principle of what we're doing. You know, and you know this. Like, that's not just saying, that's an ideology, nonviolence. It's not just sort of saying, we don't want to be violent. There's a theory of how we work in the world, and a commitment to principle, and that's animating this loose coalition.

But it's core to what we're all, to all the things we're doing, and core to this entire anti-authoritarian movement. So, no, I wasn't surprised that it worked into it. It is impressive. It's, you know, our estimate is seven million people. So you got 80,000 people in a football stadium. The odds are pretty good.

There's some scuffles are going to break out. Now, we don't have as much luckberries they might have there, but still, pretty impressive debt. So how did you, one more on the how, Antifa, the guy Fawkes guys, the white guys with the skateboards, you know, having been in a lot of protests that have turned riot, I believe it's opportunism. I don't believe that the main coalitions who are worried about policing, for example, what We, you know, the old flashpoint issue, which was abuse of force in policing in communities.

Now we have abuse of force at the executive level that you are coming after and we'll discuss that. But it was always these outside guys. I was in these riots multiple times. And once you see that guy Fox mask and once you see the organizers who are wearing the masks and they're using the walkie talkies and their phones and there are, here they come, outside agitators that want. want to make chaos of the moment, how did you deal with that? You know, we had such big numbers and such levels of organization. This wasn't that event. Like, I don't think there's that many of those people who are sort of well-intentioned,

you know, actually think as a matter of ideology, this is the way to move forward for progress. If you are one of those people, this wasn't your place. This just wasn't your place. Right, but I'm saying you, we also know that these other guys, just to be straight about it. They want to create the moment. Hopefully it flames up. they get the video and they put it online to get their clicks. Yeah, there's some people who are total provocateurs, like independent provocateurs. Right.

And, you know, my belief is, and I think this is historically true and it's hard to track in real time, of that very small number of people, I think there's a significant number of people who are part of local police forces or the federal police. And not just sort of they are undercover, but sometimes they're undercover and stoking what happens because they actually want the confrontation. But anyway, if that's what your deal was, this wasn't your event because it was too big. It was too clear what it was. The people weren't your people.

It was daylight. And I didn't really think it was a risk all along. But again, we didn't dismiss it. It was really heavily planned for her. Support comes from Seoul, but I don't feel supported enough. And I'll tell you why. I've been asking for more of this product for a while. I don't know if Greg has taken it.

or what's going on, or they're all sold out, because I wouldn't be surprised by any of those options. Soul is good stuff. If you want to relax and booze doesn't work for you anymore, soul is a wellness brand to look into, okay? They specialize in hemp-derived THC and CBD products. Now, what is that? Hemp is a different plant related to,

but different from marijuana. The distinction has a meaningful difference to me. Why? Weed gummies, weed drinks, weed, anything to me means a potential paranoid trip, which I don't need. I'm paranoid enough already. I don't have that experience with hemp, okay? It also takes away all the regulatory issues because it's not legally an issue the way marijuana is. When I take a hemp-derived THC CBD product, I get the buzz without any of the psychobabble.

Bring on the good vibes. Treat yourself to Seoul today. And right now, Soul is offering my audience 30% off their entire order. That is groovy. Just go to getsole.com and use the code Cuomo. GetSoul.com. The promo code is Cuomo. 30% off. Please, tell them I sent you, and tell them to send me my stuff.

Paramoa. Check out the big stars, big series, and blockbuster movies. Streaming on Paramount Plus. Cue the music. Like NCIS, Tony and Ziva. We'd like to make up our own rules. Tulsa King. We want to take out the competition.

The substance. This balance is not working. And the naked gun. That was awesome. Now that's a mountain of entertainment. No kings. Now we go to the why. Donald Trump is a man of strategy and tactics and ambitions to remove the norms and the institutions and be a king. Do you believe that, that it is a high-minded move by a man.

and the people around him, or is it a net effect of him just not caring how he gets things done? No, no, no. I don't think Trump has much ideology. Yes. Besides self-promotion, right? Yes.

But he believes in dominance. Yes. So he's got the instinct of an authoritarian, not necessarily the plan, but certainly the instinct and he validates it around them. Wilson. I think someone like Russ Vote, he has an authoritarian plan,

and he says so. He's not very private about it. you know, they can dress it up in fancy legal terms or constitutional terms, the so-called unitary executive, as you know, that's just a concept that says that all power to the president. All power to the president. That's an authoritarian model. So they've embraced it. And I think someone like Russvote, someone like Steve Miller, they have serious operational plans. And there's kind of a cultural universe around them who, either because they believe, you know, it's not like they believe in generically. They believe in it for Trump. They want Trump to be the authoritarian. You know,

John Stewart pulled together an hysterical set of clips saying, well, we're kind of understating it when we say he wants to be king. And he showed all these clips of where they're talking about Trump as a deity, you know, as a Jesus figure, a Jesus like figure are kind of a reincarnation of Jesus. And there's a lot of that. So there's no limit to what a lot of the people around Trump want for him. And he himself wants all the power. And then obviously, not the most important, but not unimportant either. Culturally, the trapbanks of royalty, that's what he wants. That's why he's remade the White House for all this obnoxious gold. Well, he's always done that. I mean, it is no coincidence to me. And I got over the, man, if anybody else said this, it would have been a death sentence. If anybody else did this,

it would have been a political death sentence. I got over that years ago. And again, that is a point of frustration for a lot of new entrants into the political dynamic. Is they're like, how are you not pissed off by what he says? First of all, I'm not pissed off. I'm exhausted by it because I know what gets traction and what does it. I don't mean traction on social media. That's a whole other boogeyman. But you're not going to do anything about it.

You had an election. It was all weighed and measured. And the guy won anyway. So you are where you are. And you've got to work within that moment. and what your options are. That's why I love what No Kings did. That's why I love what Public Citizen is about,

is that you're playing the game that's in front of you, not how you wish it were, but how it actually is. For example, here we are, whatever, 15 minutes in or whatever, and I'm loving the conversation. But Trump, I'm worried about the money. I'm worried about the money that he's making, and I'm worried about the money that's behind him, and I'm worried about the money that's being allowed,

and I'm worried that I'm watching in every political campaign, I'm having the same conversations with people now at every level, which is someone saying to me, well, yeah, I mean, look, you know, that's really the PAC, and the PAC is dealing with that, and that's what the PAC is doing, and the money is really, that's going to the PAC. And then finally, you're like, so who runs the PAC? And then you find the guy, they don't even know who's given them the money.

They'll take money from anyone in any amounts and you wonder why Elon had the leverage he had. You wonder why the social media platforms get to live under a law from 1996 with Section 230. You wonder why we see all these corporations benefiting from a legal immigration and not a single case against any of the employers. You know, that's what worries me as that we seem to have forgotten about the people. who are really benefiting from all of the mis and malfeasance in our society. And this is exactly what public citizen has always been about. For us, it's all Trump. And I feel like that's trumping what's really eating up our democracy.

Yeah, well, it's both things. I mean, there's an urgency around this authoritarian push on Trump that you can't not focus on. But what can you do about that? What do you do about the authoritarian part, Robert? Like, what do you do? Sue, right? Get Congress to do things. take back its power that it abdicated to the president, pass legislation, make things happen.

I mean, we basically asked for Trump by having a Congress that worked its way into an inertia of one side opposing the other. And doing nothing is the new doing something. Yeah, that's right. But, you know, but the underlying point is exactly right. And it's, I think people generally, like, if you ask people about money and politics, like, there's something close to unanimous agreement. We got to completely change the system. In fact, there's a New York Times poll. This is a few years dated. But like the only division among people over what to do about money and politics is do we need fundamental reform or do we need to change the system altogether. It's like you don't even know which is the more extreme thing. Everybody wants to do

the most. But even still, it's also worse than people realize. So as you're describing, all this the money is going to super PACs and the super PACs service driving the election. process, there's a hundred people who are responsible, 100 people, 70% of all the money goes into super PACs. And that's true year over year. So that's an oligarchy. And you buy your way in. Or we saw the spending by the cryptocurrency industry in the last election cycle directly from the company. So not just rich people, but the companies themselves who got unlimited money. And they took out Sherrod Brown in Ohio. They claimed only some truth to have changed the outcome of the primary and the Senate race in California.

But they spent these extraordinary amounts, and they've completely changed the terrain. So the Democrats are now who were pretty pro-regulation or of crypto, which I think is a disaster. Now we're split, and it's directly because of the money. Like, we did criminal prosecutions are now being pardoned away. They just bought their way out of it. And that's like this little trivial industry. but it's demonstrating for everybody, the power of political money. And it's the exact cycle you talked about.

Like the people who have all the money can spend some small part of it in politics, and they guarantee that they get rules that make sure they make even more money. I mean, crypto. Again, I know I get the frustration. If anybody else did this, you went after Hunter Biden because he was using his daddy's name and getting some deals, which certainly has happened in politics for a long time. I'm not saying it's right, but I'm saying it's not. unusual that's all and this is why people hate politics and we have standards or a lack of standards

for our politics that doesn't that don't exist anywhere else in your life whether it's with your partner are your kids your business uh school you know friendships there are no other dynamics in our society that we allow to be like our politics which is where i know you're lying to me i know this isn't going to happen and i'm going to help you anyway you You know, it's very, very rare. And yet, this is where we are and fighting for it. And the question is, what can be done about it? So I see this manifesting itself in money.

Nobody cares. Trump, his son, starts a crypto thing, makes a gazillion dollars while his father is president and figuring out what to do about crypto. and one of the main things on the table is using it as a shadow currency repository or depository for the United States government. And his son is now one of the major players with backing from Qatar, which is just everything that, like, if you and I were sitting down, be like, hey, let's design something where I'm going to do this and it's going to fucking blow me up politically. I want to go out in epic fashion of how stupid. what I just tried to do was. And here we are, and nobody gives a shit, apparently.

So, first give me that. Does nobody give a shit, or is no king's proof that they do give a shit? And what can actually be done? Yeah, well, it is another way to think about the crypto thing, which is a little bit complicated. It's kind of like the script of a movie script for you. And what does the crazy supervillain do? Well, here's the most preposterous way I'm just going to take payments from people, basically, that we're not going to call bribes because we're going to run it through some kind of weirdo company business that people are pretending as a real business.

And so the families may estimates vary between $1 and $4 billion the first nine, 10 months of the administration on this. That's a lot of money. Do people care? Well, I think on the one hand, and maybe this is just human nature, people become a little bit anesthetized to Trump's corruption. So we say that the Trump corruption is at least two orders of magnitude worse than it was the first time, like a hundred times, and not just how I feel about it. You can just measure it in dollars. So the first term, we were talking about the hotel business, especially in Washington, D.C.

And, you know, the worst example was the Saudis were taking at holding conferences they didn't need to hold in the hotel. That would be like $3,000 or $400,000, right? But now it's a billion. And the coverage is way less, which I can tell you from personal experience. We were called all the time in the first term about the corruption. And we got calls now, but it's not so much about the corruption because there's just people gotten used to it.

I think there's also the case that the crypto business is so weird to put it charitably that people don't quite understand what it is. And so it's not the same as like the hotel is very concrete. You can understand what that is. someone took out a room they didn't need. Crypto was like, what are they doing again? I don't know. But it's a problem for sure.

It is part of this of the authoritarianism. Do I think people don't care? I think people care. You know, but like when you got the plane, the $400 million plane gift from Qatar, people reacted to that because it was tangible and you could understand it. So I think we kind of need that.

So they do care a lot, but they don't care as much about his personal grift, I think, as they do about the systemic things, which are more important. How does a deal, you know, that's going to cut off people from health insurance or raise our premiums, they care about that? And we just got to do a better job of clarifying through all the noise, you know, what's actually happening in our lives because of what Trump is doing. You know, people's gas prices are going up a lot. Electric prices are going up.

Electric bills are going up. Yes. But he's also racing us to a climate catastrophe. It's not like maybe, it's a certainty. Like we're facing this civilization-threatening crisis. And he's not only like not doing it up fast enough. He's got some weird thing where he wants to attack renewable energy, not just promote the dangerous fuels.

He wants to take off line wind and solar, which is like civilization suicide stuff. And we're not talking about that. Well, but it gets a pass because it's tomorrow. And he wants to do it because he's old. The man believes America was at its best in the gilded age. And that's not because it was golden, and that's why he has gold everywhere. And the reason he has gold everywhere, as his mother told my mother, is rich people have gold.

And that's as simple as the explanation needs to be. And anybody who's ever been at a Trump property is overwhelmed by that. until Ivanka took over recently, and now you see less of it because she grew up with money, so she's less gaudy. And I've never heard you say that before. That's true.

It's 100% true. Our mother's went to the same beauty parlor. I didn't know that. Okay, so I've known this fucking, I've known this fucking family my whole life, okay? He's older than I am. But the idea, you know how frustrating it is to hear, well, you know, Trump's a New York tough guy.

You know, he's from Queens. Hold on a second. I'm from Queens. No one sounds like him where I grew up. No one, if you talked like that, you would get this shit beat out of you at a bus stop and it would have never happened again. So it all bothers me so much

that the idea that I'm ever, there's ever a suggestion that, you know, Cuomo's a little MAGA now. Cuomo seems to feel different about Trump. Listen, no one has taken more of a beating in the media from this guy than I have and nobody wants the fight more than I do, but you got to figure out how you can win the fucking thing.

And that's my frustration. So I get what he is. The Gilded Age was one of the weakest points in modern American history. It wasn't the Golden Age. That came after it. Gilded means fake, gold-plated. That's what he thought is when we were great

with the fucking robber barons and all the labor problems and all the exploitation. You know, if people just did their homework, they would see all this, but homework is boring and tedious and hard and outrage is easy. So we can't deal with tomorrow. We got to deal with today.

And today is ICE. And here's my problem with ICE, okay? My problem is, and this is where Mr. Weissman needs to put on his double Harvard hat and help me understand the difference between what is right legally, what you have the right to do under color of authority, and whether you're doing it the right way. So I come in and say, you're not here legally.

That happens to be true. You are not here legally. That is a crime. First time, it's just a misdemeanor, second time, it's a low felony, but it's a crime. I can remove you for it, period. Sanctuary city laws, I think,

are one of the spaces of an unconstitutional division between state and federal, but that will be dealt with whenever it's dealt with. So I can come in. I can arrest you. That's just how it is. So they are right on the law that they can arrest people. Now, how they do it is what I think matters. And I think that distinction is lost for people. When they say, I hate what ICE is doing,

they're an illegal police force, they're a Gestapo, they're taking the wrong people. We don't know that they're taking the wrong people because it's mostly anecdotal and they won't release the data. So I can't tell you that you're right. And I'm afraid of relying on one or two examples, especially if someone provokes it, comes up, messes with an ICE agent, won't give their ID, and turns out they're a citizen. Were they wrongfully arrested? No. Under color of authority, you were asked to present identification. You didn't. And they arrested you on probable cause. It may wind up being a bad arrest, but that's how it went down. How do you distinguish when you look at ICE between what the law says they can do and how they're choosing

to do it, which I believe is where all the poison is. Yeah, well, I'm not an expert in immigration law. I'm not sure that all the law allows all this stuff. So for one thing, people have a right to due process and they're not being given. Yes, that's the how. That's the how. I'm with you. I think we got to focus on the how.

Most of these people are people here under asylum. Like they're seeking asylum and they're entitled to hearings and they're not getting up or they're not getting fair ones. That said, I mean, I think. there's multiple parts to us, you know, the sort of the cutting edge part about what's wrong with the how is the viciousness of the effort to spread fear. And, you know, the idea of masked agents, unidentified masked agents, pulling people off the street. There's a lot of things about Trump that don't surprise me, because I don't think I had any illusions about who he was

and what we do. But that does. That does. You know how they got to this, by the way. You want to hear some more inside scoop? Yeah. The doxing is real. They have very low recruitment standards because word spread quickly, this is not a job you want to do. They're coming for you. Now, I got to tell you, I don't like that message. I don't like the look of what ICE is doing. I say it all the time. I don't blame them for wearing the masks. I think it's a bad look. I wouldn't do it, even if I might get doxed, which I have been, and a lot of other things. But they are having a hard time getting people to do the job, not because people don't believe in removing people who are here illegally.

There are a lot of bad people who come in illegally. I just believe there are a lot more that aren't bad that came in the wrong way, but do everything right once they get here. But, you know, that's a political argument. they are getting doxed. They are getting abused in a way and attacked and targeted in a way we've never seen with law enforcement before. So I get it. I just, they're right about what's wrong. I just don't like their fix.

What they should do is they should have obvious color of authority in their badges or whatever it is. And if they want to hide their faces a little bit or the names because of what's happening to them, I think there's a middle ground in that. Trump got convinced to allow it to be there. this way because it pissed him off that they were having a hard time recruiting and that these guys were getting targeted. When he was told that, he bought into it. And that's why it is where it is. It's not that he likes a Gestapo look. It's that he feels that it's not his people doing the wrong thing. That happens to all be true. I'm not saying you may like it or not like it. Yeah, I think both things can be true. I mean, maybe. I mean, like, you're saying, like,

But when I'm saying, you know, you want to see the data, you don't go by anecdote, I don't doubt there's some docs saying how serious that. And that is a horror in our culture. No, I'm saying I want to see the data on the arrests. How prevalent is that? Yeah. But say it is. I want to say.

I still think also, they very much like the intimidating element. 100%. 100%. He's a bully. You know, one of the worst, the only thing you can call me that hurts my feelings that is about me personally, you say something about my kids, my, you know, you're going to get what you want me in that confrontation. But I hate bullies. I was bullied. I've rubbed a lot of knuckles on bullies. And I hate them in our society. I hate them where I see them. Corporate bullies.

Institutional bullies. Factional bullies. Digital bullies. I hate them. And Trump is a bully. Oh, so you hate Trump? No, I hate how he does what he does. I, unlike a lot of people in both of our worlds, I don't allow you to have that power over me. You are not going to get me to hate you. You are not going to own my head and my heart that way. You are not going to possess me that way. It's never going to happen.

You're going to have your little space. I'm going to deal with you the way I have to, but you're not going to inhabit me. There are too many people who are allowing fear and justifiable outrage to dominate recourse. and anybody who has ever had any kind of training when I'm sitting across from Weissman as soon as I can get you to be angry at me when you and I are sparring

I'm at a huge advantage because you are not going to make the right decisions I'm not doing it you'll spar intellectually there's no chance don't worry about it it's not going to happen you're going to spar intellectually and you do the same thing I'll do that I'll do that and you will not get me angry you you will smack me around but that's why what are the tactics but I'm not putting on the gloves with you

but what people say is in our discourse. You're not going to run. You're not going to run. You're not going to run. You're not going to run. You're coming with a gloves. I'm out of here. The, the, what do we see? That is the functional equivalent. Oh, public citizen. I mean, that's a commie group. What? It's not a commie group. What are you talking about? Oh, yeah, you know, they're commies. No, kings, the left. You're all socialists now. You're all capitalism. You're against capitalism. Now, is that true? No, I also don't think socialism should be the boogeyman that it is. If you want to run for office in Ohio or anywhere else, I'm saying to you, Robert, you cannot say capitalism is the problem. You cannot say socialism is the answer. You cannot say free, free, free. You may get through a primary, but there are no way that people who pay taxes are going to vote for you at any kind of scale. But that's what we do, because it's antagonistic. It reduces you.

It cheapens you. It otherizes you. And that's where our politics is. And that's how no kings. I can't tell you how many people in the administration and in MAG, and on the right, dismiss it that way. Oh, those are the socialists. Those are the Democratic Socialists.

I said, I didn't hear a single socialistic message from any of the protests. It was all about how you guys are weaponizing our democracy. Yeah, I mean, whatever. You're right, but it is evidence of the discourse degrading. I mean, you had them saying, because they're very clear. Like, they're not talking about the far left. Like, they mix it, right?

like, oh, it's the far left, which, by the way, is all of the Democratic Party, all of the Democratic Perth. Joe Manchin is the far left as far as they're concerned. All right, well, that's not a serious conversation. The only thing, and so it's fine, I don't like that it gets in the way because I agree with you 100%. You know, one of the things that was good for us about No Kings that I got to, you know, did Fox a few times. Like, I want to be on Fox. I want to have that conversation. And it's harder to have people listen if you're being labeled in ways that are sort of a turn off to them. So I I don't like that. But that's part of the game. The thing that worries me, the only thing that worries me is, and this came from Mike Johnson, others, when they start using Antifa as a label, because now the president, which by the way, I know who you're talking about when you're saying the people in the goggles and stuff, there's no organization this country that identifies itself as Antifa. It's nothing. It's just a complete, right, it's just nothing. But when they say Antifa, they have an executive order, it says Antifa equals domestic terrorist. You're labeling like us like that.

You're saying, we've got the right to come at you with military force. And that, you know, it's not personal. But for us as a, you know, a movement or even a democracy, that, that worries. And it's been completely ignored. I did a piece. It happened so fast and was so casual. I did a piece on that memo. I was just talking to my producer.

I have more cousins than I have views on that piece. That memorandum is one of the scariest things I have seen for our political discourse in 25 years, okay? When they wanted to bring back the fairness doctrine, which is like absolutely not about fairness, I was less concerned than when I read that memo. And I was like, wait a minute, this guy is redefining for all the operative agencies,

national security, and looked at through the lens of domestic terror, which is a real and growing thing as America fumbles its way into fundamentalism, as all left. left. It's all left. And they got this boogeyman Antifa, which by the way is what we were in World War II, anti-fascist. And now, and you say that, I've gotten beaten up for that before. Did you just say that BLM is like the greatest generation of World War? No, I didn't. I said that

fighting fascists is what America is about, not these rogue agents trying to destroy policing. Yeah, it wasn't viewed as a particularly extreme position to fight fascism. I do the memorandum. I was like, is it. This is the worst thing Trump has ever done. This is it right here, because this is a real issue. They haven't operationalized it yet, really? But so folks who don't know this, like there was a few weeks ago now presidential memorandum against Antifa skin, this imaginary force in society, which they designated domestic terrorist organization, also legally an imaginary term. There is no such thing in law, domestic terrorist organization. But it's the premise for what they say is an all-government attack.

Clinton against going nonprofits, like the IRS should investigate nonprofits because they're somehow adjacent to Antifa. Street protests can be clamped down upon because they're allegedly Antifa, which again doesn't even exist. It's a pretty dangerous thing. And if you read,

what is Antifa? It's things that are attacking Christianity, critical of capitalism. It's the most basic stuff. And what are the predicate crime? Well, one of the predicate crimes for this domestic terrorist threat, is trespass.

Yes. Trespassing makes you, in their eyes, you know, domestic terrorists. So it's, we got to be very, we're trying to, you know, be as organized as possible around that because that's, that's a real effort to clamp down on civil society. It has nothing to do but at the imaginary threat and everything to do with their trashing and discrediting and then even militarizing against their legitimate opposition. Support comes from Shopify. Let me tell you.

we all know if you're an entrepreneur that when you're building a business you need help and you learn that the success of businesses often has to do with the business behind the business like what well when i was starting this podcast and i decided to start doing uh the free agent stuff the question becomes well how? How do I sell this stuff? How do I get people to see it? How do I make it efficient? How do I make it where if they come and look, there's a better chance that they'll follow through with a purchase? Shopify answers all these questions. They're the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. I mean, think about that. From household names like Mattel and Jim Shark to startups. So you should get started with your own design studio if you want to sell. sell things. You have hundreds of ready-to-use templates that Shopify will use to help you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand's style. Turn your big business idea into a ka-ching with Shopify on your side. You sign up for your $1 a month trial and you'll start selling today. Just go to Shopify.com slash Chris C. Shopify.com slash Chris C. Okay? Shopify.com slash Chris C and tell them I sent you. Hungry now. Now. Now. What about now? Whenever it hits you, wherever you are, grab an O. Henry bar to satisfy your hunger. With its delicious combination of

Big, crunchy, salty peanuts covered in creamy caramel and chewy fudge with a chocolatey coating. Swing by a gas station and get an O'Henry today. Oh, hungry, oh Henry. You know, a lot of this, I believe, is tactical. And I don't like how the left, and I never used to use the left and right. I only used that with Europe, you know, for like the first 15 years of my career. Now our own politics I describe in terms of left and right because the party structures have been absorbed into these fringe fights where the many are subjugated by the few. So now I use left and right and look at the spectrum the way I used to when I was analyzing Bulgaria.

So when I look at it, I think we have a partisan right, but we don't have a partisan right, but we don't have a partisan left to my view, but just go ahead. I don't want to silently agree with you on that one. Well, you don't have to silently agree with me about anything. But look, I see problems on the left. I don't believe that AOC and Bernie Sanders, charismatic. I like Bernie. I was one of the early adopters of his that got him into the national conversation at CNN. People could just go back and Google it.

He never ran for president or seriously considered it before we had him on all the time as a legitimate populist aspect to our political spectrum. It was the right thing to do. It was true, maybe even more true than I knew at the time. I don't regret it. I don't like how he's evolved. or not evolved and how he has not acted on it but says the same things, that's just a personal opinion. But I don't believe that that's a good look for the Democratic Party and attach you to the

majority of this country to have people who seem to be antagonistic to capitalistic norms and who are more into fomenting outrage than they are into fixing it. I'm a fixer. Not personally. I'm a beautiful mess. But when my leaders, I want fixers. I want less flamins. I want less flamins. semblance, more fixing. That's what I want. I want an operative Congress. I want people rewarded for what they get done. I want them judged by what they get done. Immigration for me is a layup. The Democrats fucked up by not securing the southern border. They made it easy for Trump to get a win. The real issue is legal immigration. You are right about assailies. The problem is our asylum laws. Our asylum laws do not fit with America's mentality about entry and what is

distressed entry into America. Congress won't change the laws. You get a man or woman who works for CBP. I've been down there a dozen times. And they are beautiful people doing a really hard job. And a lot of them come from that immigrant experience of how to get into the country. and they all ask for the same fucking thing. Now it's, please don't villainize me. I'm not a bad person. I'm not trying to do bad things. I don't want to hurt people.

I use my own time, my own money. I give clothes away. We do all kinds of shit that can get us fired because we believe in the humanity of what we're doing. That's the first thing. Move it to the side. What's the first policy thing they ask for? Rule changes.

Every single one of them. Rule changes. You have to decide what a legitimate basis for asylum is. because over 95% of the people who apply don't get it once they come for it. So you've got to change those processing rules. Congress won't do it. Why? Two reasons. One, they prefer the problem. Why? Works well. Works well. Makes your base angry. Great. Second problem. Why? Dreamers. Everybody agrees you should take care of the dreamers. They are being held hostage by

this inaction. But the right wants too much in exchange for the dreamers through the lens of how Democrats feel about it. So nothing gets done. That's my frustration with immigration. We never get to it because of the distraction of ICE. What should people be doing about what they're seeing with ICE other than demanding the data, which is what I'm saying? Show me who you're arresting and let me decide whether they are the bad ombres that you promised? I don't have any great answer. I think what people are doing to support families and their communities is the best thing possible.

You think they should be rushing after ICE and boxing them in and making it hard for them to do their job when often they're acting under color of authority? I don't want to say yes. I don't want to say no either on that. Harvard. Harvard. Harvard equivocation.

Harvard, Harvard equivocation. Yeah, I'm not a big equivocation. Get off the fence. scary that I work on. I think I think what they're doing is just horrible and often wrong and illegal. But I think to answer the question, I think, you know, if you can support families who, you know, people are scared and not going to jobs, need food, need access, you know, need transportation. I think that's what people can do. And I'm, you know, again, this is not really our area of focus on on my expertise. But what I do know is it's going to get worse. The reconciliation

bill gave $170 billion to ICE. And that's to hire a lot more people and build a lot more retention centers, invest a lot more in surveillance. The other three, so then, I guess, besides sort of the individual, I think it's heroic when people are trying to help, identify with people, but these are policy problems. So we can push back on some of the policy, like, including on some of these surveillance issues, the data, like the way they're trying to track people, we've got a lawsuit, this is why I'm familiar with it, for Homeland Security trying to get information from the IRS, that is not supposed to leave the IRS on undocumented people.

People get these tax numbers, these tax ID numbers, or if they're undocumented as a way to pay taxes, recognizing that they're undocumented, but paying taxes is part of the system. And the deal was, yeah, we're willing to pay taxes, but of course, we can't give you our information if we're going to share it out. Like, that was always the understanding. It's what the law says, and they're trying to obliterate that right now. So people can work on, you know, support organizations that are working on that directly. I think that's another piece of besides what you can do in the community.

What do you think the next is for No Kings? I believe what you're building is or have built, you know, put it at any stage you prefer, is the real bottom-up populist, majoritarian movement. I know that's not how people are describing it right now. They see it as the radical left, the socialists, the anti-Americans. Like, you're going to hear on my show a news nation, they're going to have

people come on from the right saying, yeah, these are the people who hate America. I don't agree. There are some people all over the place that hate this country, but decide to stay here. Okay. But you go out into the streets, you fight against what your government is

doing, you let it occupy your head and your heart. You love your country. You love your country. That's why you're doing it. So what do you think is next for No Kings because I believe you guys are the best hope for what the majority in the country wants. Whatever that is, I don't know. That's what I'm asking you, is how do you think this develops? Well, there are a few strands of it.

I think there's going to be, we had 180,000 people on the call yesterday. Like, fine, what do we do next? And I think there's going to be a series of things that are some small, some big, not the size of no kings, but it's going to be a series of. like veterans' actions on Veterans Day around the country, people talking about vets issues and how they're being impacted by Trump. There are going to be efforts to help keep the Democrats strong in the shutdown fight so they don't give in without winning some at least partial solution to the health care crisis that Trump, the Republicans, are causing. There are going to be

efforts to deal on campus to sort of build up energy on campuses to push back against Trump's effort to impose this really conservative agenda in the university space and efforts along those lines, including providing support to people who are, you know, going hungry because all these cuts are going on. And then there will come a time when the next mobilization happens at large scale. There's no date set for that. I'm like, I probably wouldn't tell you if I had it, but I can tell you honestly, we don't have agreed on right now.

We're going to sort of see the feel of things for that. But beyond sort of like that's sort of specifically how we come out of it. I think you're right that it's not just what are these specific things. It's like there's this, it is an expression of a movement. I do think it's making the Democratic politicians be better. I think that's the ground up way. It's not some people in the coalition do do partisan work, either, you know, supporting Democrats or pushing Democrats.

Others of us don't. We don't. But the whole. demonstration that people want a firm rejection of authoritarian agenda. They want people to be aggressively pro-democracy. I think that's making the Democrats be better. And to me, that's one of the most important parts

that come out of it going forward, and hopefully we keep growing. It's the biggest day of protest in American history. And there's also, like, the crowd is what the crowd is. You know, it's not all for sure, but it's disproportionately older white. So we've got a lot of sectors of society to sort of grow and build.

And I 100% agree with you. There's a lot of people. You cannot say we're fringe. And it's this idea of hate America's nonsense. People are only doing it because they care about the country and are expressing our best values. But this is a representation of a significant majority of the country.

I think we keep demonstrating it like this and growing. People are going to understand that. And hopefully it has, the electoral outcomes that ultimately does. Last point. Weissman, public citizen, thinking too small. Why do I say it? Here's why. I think that you are not, I say playing with with all due respect, you are operating within the space, let's say, of the best hope for our electoral future. There is MAGA reaction formation. That's why you have older whites that are coming out.

Nobody wants to admit that yet. That this is MAGA reaction formation unless they want to say, yeah, these are the crazy young lefties with the blue hair. That's the stereotype who don't know. Yeah, I want more of them. Whether to sit, stand when they pee, which is not accurate. It's not what came out. It's MAGA reaction formation because the idea that white males, females, 35 to 6,

or all one way politically has always been a lie. But I believe that this is the antidote to the two-party lockjaw that we have. Yes, there's going to be, you are an oppositional dynamic. So who's in power, the right, okay, so then Democrats are the easy reach. But I think that the move is not to help Democrats, but to make Democrats leave. being a Democrat and join this. And what is it? What is it called? Is it a party? It could be. It could be a ballot movement where this is what people have been waiting for. The reason that the fastest growing part of the electorate is I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. The reason why it's a

plurality. The reason why people waste their time saying I'm not on a team when you have to be on a team almost everywhere to be relevant. Why would they do that? To disadvantage themselves? No, because they're desperate for something else. This could be it, Robert. This could be, this is it. You want to run? You're running as you're with us. And this is our agenda. And here's where you're going to fit within it. And you are, we are not Democrats. We are not Republicans. We are not MAGA. We are something else that is a pure new populist movement. And this is what it is. And this is what our agenda is. And if you're with it, then that's what you are. We're not Democrats who are mobilizing for them to resist Trump. We're a lot more than that. We're a whole entity in and of ourselves of an

agenda within ambitions and policies and desires. And if you're with that, then that's what you are. Well, like I said, we are non-partisan. So that's, I can't go in that to the face. But I will say this, which is somewhat different, but same kind of line of thinking. I mean, as you, as you, just say, like, we're trying to deal with the situation we have now. So, like, the opposition party is the opposition party. But we're, we public citizen, we're not part of the Democratic Party, and we're not fronting for the Democratic Party. But they aren't the opposition on any opposition. I do think that the way forward, irrespective of the party formation, is the populist agenda you're talking about. And we talk about what,

where the majority of people think, when you get to that agenda, it is overwhelming across issues. Like, do you want to deal with CEO pay? Way higher 70%. Do you want to deal with excess drug pricing? Over 90%. Do you think we should actually take on environmental problems, even if a fake choice of losing jobs, yeah, more than 60%. Should we deal with antitrust and breaking up big companies? Yeah, well over 70%. Downline, she taxed the rich, 80%. So, like, these are gigantic numbers. And, you know, to come back to where we were talking before, the reason that agenda doesn't get realized in Washington, D.C. is not Democrat Republican. It's because of the power of big money. So if we can cut through that with an economic populist agenda, yeah, I think that's

the winning ticket, and that's that's trans party. Like it's going to go through, filter through parties one way or another, but that's what we're about is pushing forward that agenda. You know, like I said, you can see my energy. That's what I want to talk about. I understand we have to deal with the Trump thing right now, but we're going to do that too. But I think that the sweet spot is you will not be. be limited by what you are against. You will be defined by what you are for because you are not about why he's worse. This is why I'm such a fan of yours and a public citizen and I have been for a very long time. I guess I started tracking you somewhere around 2012. You'd been there a few years

already. And I was watching Public Citizen and I was always like, man, this should be the shit, this movement. This entity, like this is all we really need outside of the electoral process is to kind of keep the ambitions straight. And I am very hopeful. Now, that said, I'm about to do a piece where I say that things are about to get worse. Why? Because we're stuck.

We're stuck in this comparison of what is worse. And yet, two things can be true at the same time. I know what gets us out of this. And you're one of the leaders of it right now. And I believe in it. And not because you support the people who shot Trump. Bullshit. If I had been there that day and I could have killed that guy

who wanted to kill Trump, I would have done it. Why? Because that's what's right for this country. And if you don't think that, look at what happened even on a junior level with Charlie Kirk. He's not an elected official. You know, he wasn't anything while he was alive that he has become in his death. And that's very regrettable for his family. And I hated to watch it. But we are being driven by our worst instincts right now. That's not what No Kings is about. That's not what Public Citizen is about. And you are obsessed with better. You have been. your whole career, despite the inferior academic institutions you went to, you have been obsessed with how do we get out from under the yoke of the few and to give more to the many. I'm here for it. At News Nation, on the podcast, I will not let you be demonized. I will not let it happen. It is untrue and it's unfair and we need the hope. And I think you're driving that and I'm very anxious to see what is next. Protest is amazing. The weekends that you put together, was historic and phenomenal, if underreported, oddly.

But there's a lot more that you guys can do in manifesting yourselves on election days. It's a lot to come. Thank you very much. Let's be in touch, and I'll see you early and often. Oh, thanks, man. Talk to you soon. So, what is the leavening agent of the ambitions, of the hope, of the next, of the why?

Well, it's the what is. And where is the smart money on what's happening right now in politics and what that reflects about where people are in terms of what they want and what's likely to happen? That's why I partnered with Kalshi. Kalshi is at the top of the game of betting on politics. And I know there's something that you can find a little unsavory about that, but you've got to get over it just like I did. Why? Because when people have to put money where their mouth is, they take it a little bit more seriously.

Okay? I think this is guy, I think he's going to win. I think he's going to pull it out. Oh, yeah? You want to bet $20? Oh, I'm not saying that. That is an important distinction. And that's why I like looking at Kalshi, because I want to see where the smart money is,

where people who are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Very interesting. First one, which I think is a good bell weather race. Graham Platner, okay? Is he going to drop out of this main Senate race? Main Senate? Who cares? You should care.

Here's why. as main goes so may the senate why the numbers are so close why because we're all about division division is an inherently mitigating strategy what does that mean it is a reductive strategy what does that mean times two what it means is when i go negative when i go about uh how to make people angry and demagoguery what i'm doing is i'm winnowing down because the out raged is a far smaller number than the hopeful, than the reasonable. Okay. So when you're going for the rabid instead of the reasonable, you're going to have fewer people. And that's what we've allowed our party politics to be about. You know how like when you cook something down, it gets more,

it gets more intense, it gets more enriched, right? Why? Because you're distilling it to its basic things. That's what we've allowed our politics to come. So this main race is kind of a look at which way do you want to go? Do you want to go towards reasonable or you just want to stick with rabid? Graham Platner is kind of a leavening agent there. He's kind of a canarian, a coal mine. And if he stays in that race, he can complicate it. And he can make it less likely that you get change there. So he's interesting to watch. And if you look at the money, it looks like they believe he's going to stay in. Why? Because there's nobody strong enough to push him out. So what's driving the money has been the controversy around Platner. What? His funky

tattoos and what people think that means about him and where his real interests lie. And he hasn't handled it well. So doubt creates what? Variability and outcome that maybe he's going to have to get out. But it's still only a 25%. Why? Because no one really cares enough about Graham Platner, kind of like they are playing with in that attorney general race down there in Virginia. And until the media really focuses on you and is trying to get you out, we don't really see that with Graham Platner. And you know what reflects that? The money. Although, I'll tell you what I would do. I know that we're dealing with a very compressed time frame before the election. I would put money on them chasing him out of the race. Why? It's a cheap bet right now.

And I think that it'll gain subtraction between now and then. You can always sell before the date of the election right because you have two value propositions on calci what is the value of your bet right now and then how does it pay off or not on election day or whenever the triggering date is for whatever the wager was in the first place so right now they're saying no he's going to stay in i get why this should have killed him but in the politics of outrage the tattoos are just like one more thing that make you shake your head about where we are i get it i get it but i think that there's more value in that one than they're suggesting and i like playing with this why because i'm terrible at it. I don't see it that way. I have a romantical notion because I'm a hopeless

optimist about our politics and us getting to a better place. And often that jades where I should be. So let's look at it through the lens of two different metrics. One is, so what does that mean for the Democratic primary in that Senate race? And what does it mean for the overall outcome in the race? Cal, she's got both. Now, you definitely see this when you look at Janet Mills in terms of her winning that Democratic side, right, which is kind of netting Graham to neutral. And Jordan Wood is, you know, he's been a hash mark from the beginning. But remember, spoilers are a thing, okay? And you don't have to have much to decide the fate of the many, meaning what, that you determine the outcome because the margin's so small. So that's why Wood kind of matters. Platner, you see,

again is losing some energy and Mills is going up. Why? Because of the controversy. So she is a prohibitive favorite in that. I think that stays that way. I'm surprised it's only at 65%. Again, I would buy in there and look for a tick up in it and then sell. Why? Because you probably won't get as much money on election day unless you go really heavy with the bet. And you may get an incremental pop that's actually more of a value proposition in terms of the value of that bet. Now, look, a lot of this may not resonate with you because you're not betting and you're like, what the heck is he even talking about? The value in the analysis is still the same about what I think is going to happen in that race. Whether or not you're wagering on it is somewhat irrelevant in

terms of what's going to affect and wind up mattering most in that race. So overall, Senate, do we think the Democrat is going to win? Yeah, why? Because the Republican side is so injured with Collins. Why? Collins is actually what you guys accuse me of on a regular basis, which is what? She's lost her soul. She doesn't know what she's about anymore. I was a fan of Susan Collins. I haven't changed my opinion of her personally. Why? Because I don't know her well enough for me to have had any really deep feelings personally. I always felt she had a foxy charm to her, but I felt she was a fair broker and knew what she was about and had an intelligence and an insistence on principles beyond party.

I don't think that anymore. Why? Too much with the judges, with reproductive rights, too much that she should have stood on on principle over practicality or pragmatism and didn't. And that's why she's in the dumps right now and trending the wrong way. And absent a horrible turnout occasion for the Democrat. on that day, she should lose that race. So I believe that the trending is,

trend is your friend, as they say, on Wall Street. I think the trend is your friend here on this one as well. So I like looking at politics, because look, let's be honest. Let's be honest, okay? We've made it a sport. It being binary, it being all about which side is worse, it being so reductive and no longer about change and not really about ideas, but just about animus.

we've made it cheap in a sport. It should be bet on because it is working off metrics that are disgusting to me. And that's where we are. And I think one of the most intelligent ways to appraise this toxic environment, this thunderdome that we're all stuck in right now, is through where people will put money on their mouth. And Kalshi is at the head of that game. and they are a fair broker in a really unfair political reality.

So that's why I'm happy to partner with them to see where people are in terms of putting their money where their mouths are and what do that means about the outcomes in our politics. It's a good way to look at it and that's why we're doing it here. But I'm really happy that I got to talk to somebody that I believe may be the unspoken hero in getting America to a better place of a political reality that reflects the interests of the majority. No Kings is not a fringe movement. That was not a bunch of blue-haired kids out there. And by the way, I would be great with a bunch of blue-haired kids being out there. Why? Because the more young people care about their future, the better their future will be. And the more we have a

coalition of the willing who want to see America get to a better place. We have to be able to do better than this. Feel about me any way you want. I don't give a fuck. But I do care how you feel about our collective fate and what you're willing to do about it, not to make it worse, but to make it better. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining me for subscribing and following here, the Chris Cuomo Project, and checking me out at News Nation every weekday night at 8p and 11P Eastern. The problems are real, but there is a collective fate where things get better, so let's get after it. Thank you.