The Daily Beast Podcast - The Secret Sign Trump's People Know He's Not Fit

Episode Date: November 11, 2025

Symone Sanders Townsend joins Joanna Coles to break down the moment Donald Trump struggled to stay awake for twenty minutes in the Oval Office, and why the fact that no one around him reacted is the real story. Sanders, co-host of “The Weeknight,” on MSNBC soon to be MS NOW starting on November 15th, outlines the mystery of who’s really running the White House to the gold “Oval Office” signage, the secretive East Wing demolition, and the advisers suddenly speaking in “I” and “we,” Symone exposes a presidency drifting without leadership. In the end, Symone leaves us with the fundamental question: If Trump can fall asleep on camera and his deputies shrug, who’s actually in charge? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The president of the United States seemed to be sleep in a event in the Oval Office for about 20 minutes the other day. Where are the questions about that? Who is actually in charge here? Because that can't be the first time the president fell asleep. You know how I know? Because they didn't bat an eye. They didn't think that. That is not the first time the president fell asleep.

So when that happens, who is making the decisions? I'm Joanna Coles. This is the Daily Beast podcast. and my guest today has been inside more political warrooms than any of us could ever dream of. Simone Sanders Townsend worked for Bernie, Biden and Carmola, a trifecta that gives her a front row seat to the theatre, the tantrums, and the tactics of American politics. She's now co-host of the weeknight on MSNBC, or MS Now, as they're about to call themselves, where she brings the same sharp instincts she once used.

behind the podium to the screen. Simone, welcome. We could not have a better person to discuss what the hell is going on in the Democratic Party. You were national press secretary for Bernie Sanders. You were a senior advisor to Joe Biden. And then you were press secretary for Kamala or head of I was a senior advisor and her chief spokesperson for the vice president. And I was a deputy assistant to the president. So I've seen it all. You've seen it all. And we find us, ourselves in the most, I think, surprising moment. I was not anticipating that eight Democrats would vote with the Republicans to, at least in the Senate, to move on with the shutdown, to close the shutdown. I mean, we've got other Democrats calling them defectors. What the hell is going on?

Well, look, Joanna, I was sitting watching with baited breath yesterday, just like everyone else, trying to understand if this was true. And as I was running my errands on Sunday, I'm texting with and calling senators that I know, just really trying to parse through the tea leaves and read what's going on. And what I gathered is the culmination of what we saw last night, is that a number of Democrats, many of them, I think almost all of them, none of them are up for re-election next cycle. Many of them are retiring.

Right. Dick Durbin is, who's number two in the Senate, right? he's retiring. And what was clear to me is that folks felt that the pain that people were feeling all across this country, whether it was pain because you don't know when your SNAP benefits are coming because the president has decided not to fund SNAP, whether it's the pain of standing in a food line all across this country because you don't know when your next check is coming, whatever, whether it's the pain of. of, you know, your flight being delayed or canceled five minutes before you're supposed to get on

or if you're an air traffic controller who literally cannot afford to keep doing the job of three people when you yourself are not getting paid. Whatever that pain is that those eight Democrats felt that the pain was too much and too much pain, too much time had passed and that they needed to cut a deal and compromise. Now, my takeaway from this is two things. One, the hostage taking that the White House engaged in, over the last couple of weeks, it worked. And I say that because the White House made a decision not to fund snap. Why? Because they thought, and, you know, these eight Democrats in the Senate, I think, underscore

that that their thinking was correct. They thought that using the hunger of people in this country would bring Democrats back to the table. Now, I think they thought Chuck Schumer would be the one to fold and would lead the caucus in doing it that way. But that is not how it happened. So when I think the hostage taking work, I would also underscore that the chaos that we've been seeing in the airline industry, it is a manufactured crisis, but it worked. But how does this work in terms of the Democrats' leadership?

Because you've got Governor Newsom in California, you've got Richie Torres in New York saying this is surrender. This is unconditional surrender. How do you think Donald Trump is going to use this against the Democrats? I don't think it's smart politics and I don't think it was good policy because it's the same deal. the Senator Thune offered Democrats a couple weeks ago, and they didn't take it. I mean, yesterday, the people were with the Democrats. They believe them. And so what do you tell the folks who have suffered for the last 40 days that, yes, you were fighting for them, but the fight has ended with nothing but a pinky promise.

And I think that that's a key question. And so I think it's not just Gavin Newsom and Richie Torres, right, who are upset. I think a lot of people who have been doing the hard work of electing Democrats up and down the ballot over the last couple of months in special elections. And then they culminated on Tuesday and this off-off year election. Those people are like, wait, what are we doing? Mikey Cheryl, the governor-elect of New Jersey. She was on CBS this morning on Sunday morning, and she was asked by Margaret Brennan directly. She said, Margaret Brennan asked her, why would the promise of a vote not be enough?

paraphrasing here, and not be a good deal. And the governor-elect who currently serves in the House of Representatives, she said a promise is not enough. It's not enough to promise the subsidies. They need to vote on it in whatever is presented. And so I guess I would underscore that it's not good politics, it's not good policy. And the people who, again, made this, you know, decision, these eight members of Congress of the House of the Senate are people who are not going to really feel any consequences for what they've what they've done electorally. But for everyone else, if you're a person that, you know, rely, that cannot, it is already counting your coins across the country, you can't afford for your premiums to go up. In what universe are we going to believe that the

Republican Party apparatus, this current version, the House led by Mike Jones, Johnson, who has already said he's not going to be, he's not going to promise anything three days ago, four days ago at this point. He said he's not going to promise any vote on subsidies. He's just going to let the process play out. Why would you believe that a vote is going to happen in the Senate and the House and then get to Donald, and then a bill is going to get to Donald Trump's desk? That's a lot of faith to put into the hands of people who have been unwilling to stand up for themselves as a co-eco branch of government. I'm talking about Republicans in Congress. So you are the national press spokesperson for Senator Bernie Sanders. If you were in Trump's press organization now, how would you be spinning this?

Now, Joanna, I don't think there's a universe where I will ever be in Donald Trump's press orbit. I don't think so either. But the skills are the same. Oh, I think they're going to say that Democrats caved. Right. To be very clear, they're going to say Democrats caved. they finally come to the table. They're being adults now. And I think Caroline Levin is going to stand in front of that podium today and tomorrow

and say these eight Democrats that came to the table understood what I've been saying for weeks. It was not good politics nor is it good policy. Because up until yesterday, the Republicans were being in Congress were being blamed for the shutdown. How do you think this decision reflects on the fact that the Democrats just have, a victorious sweep last week on Tuesday. I mean, they were riding high. There was energy. People were saying, oh, finally, the Democrats have got their act together. They're coming back. They've got energy. They're united. I think this is quite unusual. I don't remember, at least recently, Democrats attacking each other like they are doing now. The unconditional surrender language is

really unusual for Democrats to attack each other. Normally that's reserved for the other party. but now you've got them against each other. I mean, there are the things I was seeing being lobbed last night on social media in my inbox. I was, to be frank, I was on one hand shocked,

but on another hand, I'm not shocked because the stakes are very high in this moment. And look, Democrats in the House and the Senate, they are in the minority. When you're in the minority, the majority party, they don't actually need you for anything.

And this Republican Party apparatus, this iteration, of this Republican Congress with Donald Trump as president in the second term has demonstrated that, has gone through great lengths to demonstrate that. But the one thing they do need Democrats for in this iteration, because there is the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, is to fund the government. They do need the Democrats to do that. And because Republicans do not have 60 votes, they must compromise. And I think the issue that a lot of voters have across the country and the language is so strong, frankly, from some of these other members of the Democratic Party apparatus

is because it's like these members threw their leverage away after 40 days for what? They didn't get anything. And I think that if there was something of note that they got, and I know that in this CR that was passed, they got a promise that people who were rift, i.e. fired while they were furloughed, that those people would be reinstated, which is important. And they also got a promise that people, if there's ever another furlough, people will never be riffed again. Okay, well, did Donald Trump know about this negotiation? Because he is the person.

You know, John Thiel, last I checked, didn't riff anyone, didn't fire anybody, dismiss them from their federal, you know, their job within the federal government. The president did, and to be very clear, Russell Vote did. Did anybody get Russell vote to sign onto this? Because what regularly happens is the members of Congress will get together and pass something. do something, right? And then the White House, led by Russell Vote, is saying, we're not going to do that, we're going to do this. We're going to take the money from here. We're going to take the money from there. We're not going to fund this. We're going to fund this. They don't actually get to decide that. And so I think the issue that a lot of folks have is you're putting a lot of faith

into some, and a lot of trust to individuals who, one could argue, are not actually in the driver's seat. Because John Thune agreed to that. The members agreed to that. But what about the president and Russville. No, nobody likes Democratic infighting, to be very clear. But sometimes, you know, this is a big tent. You know, Thanksgiving is coming up, Joanna. Sometimes you got to have a family conversation now. I think what's unfortunate is the family conversation is playing out in the public on the internet and in the airwaves. But it's a tough day to be a senator, Joanna. Very tough. Very tough day to be a senator. I mean, I guess the senators who voted with the Republicans to end the shutdown. And of course, it's still got to go through Congress.

But what did they gain from this? They said that they got some promises about people who were furloughed and had been fired. And they got those folks reinstated. And they got a promise of a vote on the Affordable Care Act subsidies in December. And they'll say that this means that SNAP is going to be funded. Wick will be funded. Head starts are going to open. Like headstarts all across the country are closed right now.

There are families that have to go to work today. and people who did not know what they were going to be able to do with their children, right? Unless they were, you know, if your child is not of school age per se, like what are you, child care is already too expensive in this country. And so they would say that they alleviated the pain for people across this country because there was, they were at an impasse. There was no other choice. We'll see if that is an effective and sufficient argument for folks across the country.

it's not in a sufficient argument for me, okay, but I'm not one of their constituents. So we'll see what their constituents said. Again, I say one other thing, Joanna, because this whole conversation that we're having now about affordability, and it's like everyone has woken up that affordability is the issue. This is an extension of a conversation we were actually having in 2020 and 2021, right? Remember when Joe Biden had the build back better plan? And I was one of the people that was very critical that people didn't know what build back better was by 2020 and 2020. So you got to ditch the language. But part two of Bill Back Better was about the care economy.

Affordability, the affordability crisis is just the care economy by another name. And just a couple years ago, just five years ago, there was not the political will from most elected leaders in this country in the House and the Senate, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, to address that crisis. And now we are living with the ramifications of not doing that. perhaps we would not be in this such dire place if, well, one, if Donald Trump wasn't president because of the tariffs, but two, if, you know, some legislation was actually passed in 2021 or in 2022 that actually affected the things that deal with people's everyday lives first. So I mean, I think that there's a lot of soul searching, frankly, that's going on today. And the primaries that are happening in the midterms next year and the Democratic side of the aisle, you are going to see an emergence of people who are willing to fight versus those that are not. and how do you fight? And those are the kind of conversations I think we're going to see playing out in Maine, in North Carolina, right, where they're two very important primary in Ohio, right, where Democrats, Sherrod Brown is, is, could potentially get back his Senate seat, right?

In Texas, where I do believe, you know, if John Corn is, is not a Republican nominee and Kim Paxton is Democrat, that is, that is, that is in play. These are the kind of conversations that are going to play out across the country. And in some of these house, house races, very, very. competitive house races. So the people that you hear saying, ah, what are you Democrats doing? This is not what the people want. Those are folks that understand where the pulse of the Democratic voters are. And that matters. John Alsop is the most vulnerable Senate Democrat up for reelection next cycle. He is in Georgia. And yesterday afternoon, when I saw that John Osop was a no, I was like, oh,

okay. The pulse is still there. John Alsop has his finger. on the pulse. I don't think he's, he is continuing, he voted no, just on principle. He is understanding where the constituents are. And so I think people should take a look at what the leadership of the DSCC, the Democratic Senator editorial campaign committee, how they voted, right? Christian Gillibrand leads that effort. She is the head of that effort this cycle. One of the vice chairs is Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester out of Delaware. How did they vote? Where did they come down? What are they saying over the next couple of days? Because these are the individuals. Yes, Chuck Schumer as well, but like these are the folks who are doing the everyday

work of trying to take back the Senate for the Democrats. So child, Joanna, it doesn't make sense, okay? Some of it just doesn't make sense. Does the Democratic Party need new leadership? And where is it going to come from? I would argue that that's a loaded question. What are we talking about? Are we talking about in the House and the Senate or nationally? Governor Newsom, like him or love him, is emerging as the dominant democratic figure, right? right now. You've got a lot of people circling around Chuck Schumer saying he has to go. Nancy Pelosi has just announced she's retiring. And in terms of the sort of polling, Governor Newsom with his funny tweets and his confidence in speaking out and apparently saying what he believes

appears to be leading the pack. Now, of course, it's incredibly early. But the fact that Carmelah Harris was nowhere to be seen in the Virginia governor's race. She was nowhere to be seen in the New Jersey governor's race. I mean, there seems to be a vacancy, and he appears to be stepping into it. And then there's Governor Pritzker running close behind. Well, look, I think that when people, I don't think that Democrats right now need a leader to lead them out of the wilderness, right? I think that there are many national figures and leaders that are emerging. I would add to that list, Governor Westmore. I would add that there are a lot of champions in the organization. the House side, frankly, of the aisle, and excuse me, in Congress that are leading voices.

But none of them have the visibility, because part of this is about just the ability to get attention and the ability to be seen. And you may be right that these are emerging figures, but none of them have the prominence that Governor Newsom or J.B. Pritzker have at the moment. Right. But I mean, Westmore, he's a governor too. He has the prominence. I just, I would argue that Democrats, a lot of Democrats and I think a lot of people who are watching Democratic Party politics are saying, ah, who's going to be the leader that's going to step up and, like, take the mantle? And, in a off, to be very clear, when you've lost the presidential election, you don't actually have a leader. That's actually how it works. When you lose the presidential, you don't have a leader. You got a lot of people that

say they want to be the leader of the Democratic Party apparatus of the situation. You say that, but in fact, Donald Trump remained the head of the Republican Party after he lost the election, right? I mean, the party became his party. Well, on the Republican side of the aisle, yeah, that worked for them. They have, I mean, he has been dominant in Republican Party politics for the last 10 years. They never walked away from the Republican Party apparatus, never walked away from Donald Trump. They never turned the page, frankly. I think Democrats, on the other hand, they, I mean, very prominent Democrats participated in the very public ousting of the sitting president as a Democratic nominee.

cycle. To be like, this is, this is where we are. And so that to me says that these two parties are one of the reasons that these two parties are not like the other. But when it comes to Democratic Party politics, usually when you lose, there, you are kind of in the wilderness for a little bit. And the way you come out of the wilderness is you go win some more elections and then different leadership emerges. Gavin Newsom is doing a great job. J.B. Pritzker is doing a really good job. I would argue Westmore is doing a good job. There are Democratic governors in in this country. Like the Democratic governor is a hold in the line. We don't talk a lot about her right now, but Gretchen Whitmer, she's leading in Michigan. So what could some of those people

be the leader that Democrats are looking for? Could any of those people end up being the Democratic nominee? Yes. But I also think that the Democratic nominee for 2028 could potentially be someone that we haven't even heard of yet. But I also believe, I'm going to be honest, Joanna. I'm concerned about the elections in 2026 and what those elections. look like. And I am not sure what 2028 is going to pretend. Given everything that is happening, we don't talk

enough about what's going on on the electoral, on just the electoral administration side here. But this administration has taken up something called election integrity. They've installed election deniers into key positions

in the Department of Homeland Security. They are asking states all across this country to give them their voter file data and threatening them withholding funds if they do not do that. They are attempting to take over the election infrastructure in this country. Hell, just last night, the president pardoned all the fake electors, the people who are part of the fake electors scheme from 2020. Simone, just one moment, we're going to take a break for some messages from our sponsors.

And I'm back with Simone Sanders Townsend talking about the split in the Democratic Party. Do you think the Republicans are going to fiddle with the elections? Do you think they're going to actually either make sure some of them don't happen? Or how do you think that's going to happen? What's the mechanism? I think they're fiddling with the elections right now. That's what the mid-decade redistricting is about. That the president was concerned about them.

This is just from reporting that I have seen and stories that I know, that the president was concerned about the ability to retain the house specifically earlier this year and said, okay, well, we need to do something about this. and that is why they called up Texas and asked them to find him five seats. And Texas did that. They are now, they all now also called up Indiana and Missouri. That is a part of it. Right.

But California has responded to that with its own gerrymandering or redistricting, right? Mm-hmm. But that's not, there is no guarantee that any of this will be enough. But the point is, is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. The president of the United States cannot call, should not, it cannot call up a governor of another state. and say, hey, I'm going, the way the maps are right now, I'm going to lose the election next year. Can you find me five more seats? So it makes it more likely I win. That is a form of, of, that is a form of tampering with the, he's tampering with the maps.

He's trying to engineer, re-engineer the system, so it is better for him. The election, the poll monitors that they send out, right? These are all, these are all test cases and trial balloons. I don't know if they're going to physically, you know, tamper with the votes. I don't think that it has to go that far. I think the infrastructure of elections in this country and the very attempts to tinker and tamper with the election infrastructure in this country is enough to give me pause. Okay. So let me take you to Carolyn Leavitt, the White House press spokesperson who is very much a representative of what's. going on in the White House. You've been a press secretary. What do you think of her? We know that Donald Trump calls her machine gun lips. He's always talking about her lips. What do you think about what comes

out of her lips? I think that Caroline Levitt is being graded on a curve that would, and I think a lot of the Trump people are, frankly, graded on a curve that would never be afforded to, like, that would have never been afforded to Joe Biden and would never be afforded to insert any other Democratic president that's there. What does that mean? I think she's being graded a curve. She gets up there and she will not tell the truth and lie. She will lie. She has lied from the podium before.

And when she lies, she says it with authority and then moves on to the next person. And a lot of times, the reporters in the press briefing room do not press her. I would argue as of late when it comes to what is happening with the government shutdown and snap, the reporters

have been a little more pointed in their questioning because it's just not adding up and it's not making sense. But I think that just because one speaks with authority, right? This is the Trumpism of it all, right? You speak with authority. You seem to be in command of what you're saying, and it's like, okay, so the content doesn't matter. You're accessible to the reporters, right? Because that's one of the arguments from a lot of folks in the White House Press Corps. Well, you know, Biden wasn't really accessible. Donald Trump is very accessible. Caroline Levitt,

you know, we can get answers from her. Is the accessibility the point or the information? and I think that they have found, this Trump White House, found a very willing participant in Caroline Leavitt. Was she knew at the job? Has she ever been a press secretary before? No. Was she a comms person? No, but she is a soldier. And that is what, those are the requirements for the Trump administration right now.

They don't necessarily care about your qualifications. They care if you're going to tow the line for the president and defend him in his agenda at all costs. And if that is the barometer of which she is being graded, then she's, she's, she's, she's hitting all the marks because regardless of what it is, she concedes nothing. She will relent nothing. There's nothing they ever did wrong. She'll stand up on the podium and say things that are in direct contradiction that would a captain secretary just put out or just said somewhere else. And it's like, oh, well, Caroline Levin said it.

So it must be true. So if you were grading her, what grade would you give her? Very low marks. I mean, I guess I'd give a D. They're lying. They're lying. I'd give a D. I don't give a F because, you know, like, I give a D because she stands up there regularly and doesn't tell the truth.

But part of that is not only on her, the people who are asking the questions have to be about the business of asking the questions in the briefing room without fear of favor. And the reality is that this particular White House has punished reporters. It wasn't that long ago that we were all talking about the Associated Press. and the fact that they were being excluded from, not just press briefings, but they were excluded from anything with the president. The wires, the Associated Press not being in the room, and what was the public response from the other reporters in the room? They literally would walk into rooms where the Associated Press was kept out of,

and not even ask a question on their behalf. So I do think that the reporters in the briefing room are struggling through their own way of how can they effectively do their jobs, in this environment. And Caroline Leavitt and Donald Trump understand that very much so. The president is nothing, if not a master marketer. I would absolutely give him that. And they understand pain points.

They clearly understand leverage. Just to be clear, Joanna, I worked with all of these reporters. When I was at the White House, I just, you know, some of the things they allow the Trump folks to get away with, some of the answers, they just let them walk away from. I am aghast because I'm like, That would have never happened a year ago. That would have never been sufficient a year ago. The president of the United States seemed to be sleep in a event in the Oval Office for about 20 minutes the other day. And then someone who was at that press conference passed out behind him and he stood up and didn't even turn around and check on him.

I think the president just woke up. I don't know what happened. Where are the questions about that? This is what I'm talking about being graded on the curve. It's like we all just moved on. Now, to his credit, he came back when they finally resumed the press event, and he seemed very alert and awake. I don't know if he got a Celsius, a Red Bull, a cup of green tea, or an espresso. But are you, y'all seriously trying to tell me that if Joe Biden was sleep in the Oval Office for 20 minutes on camera, that wouldn't have been the only thing.

No reporter would have asked questions and said, excuse me, excuse me, it seems like the president is sleep. Simone, you mentioned Trump falling asleep for 20 minutes and the law. White House. Is that a national security concern? I think it could be for sure. To me, when I saw that, it made me, it brought up the questions again about, okay, what is the actual apparatus of this White House? Who is actually in charge here? Because that can't be the first time the president fell asleep. You know how I know? Because they didn't bat an eye. They didn't, that is, that is not the first time the president fell asleep. So when that happens, who is making the decisions? I think about when, I've got my notebook here, when the president was doing these public signings of these executive

orders and they come in and they explain to him what the executive order is. And he's like, oh, okay, yeah. Well, sir, is that the first time you, is this the first time you were hearing about not going to, does the president sign off on this in advance? Who is signing off on the particulars of what is happening in this White House? I harken back to Stephen Miller a couple weeks ago doing interviews with reporters. And he was using terms like I and we. When I worked at the White House, it is not I or we. It is the president, the president and the vice president. But you serve at the pleasure of the president. And so we're using eye statements. Are you the one making the decision, Stephen Miller, about these strike force teams? How much aware is the president of what is going on? These are all questions I think that deserve to be asked. And he fell asleep for 20.

minutes and it wasn't even a blip. Joe Biden, if Joe Biden was asleep for 20 minutes in front of the camera, baby, it would be, it would be breaking news for three weeks. There's a lot of argument, and you've referred to it, that Donald Trump is available and he's transparent in terms of what his plans are. When you were at the White House, was there an attempt to shield Joe Biden from the press and from the public because he wasn't up to the job? So I would say no, and I worked in the White House in the first year,

and I know that there are, you know, people have many thoughts about what happened that year and then in years after in that Biden White House. But I will say it's my understanding that the thought was, that they didn't prioritize legacy media and legacy press. Like they didn't the, and by they, I mean, some of the advisors to the president didn't think that the Sunday shows, for example, were in, important. That, you know, that's a relic of the past. Now, I think that there's arguments to be made either way, but on one hand, you are still, you got to, in my opinion, you have to play ball,

right? So whether you think they're important or not, some people are still watching them, and the press court thinks it's important. So if you don't give them anything, you give them room to say a whole lot of extra things. So you have to give them some kind of access. Their thought, and again, advisors to the president, when I worked at the White House, a thought, was, well, he does a lot of gaggles. And so, you know, he goes over, he speaks to the reporters, but did he do a lot of formal sit downs? No. And did he not? And I think the thought that he didn't do them because he couldn't is wrong. I think the reality is he didn't do them because he didn't want to. And maybe that's just a tougher, like, that's just like, oh, that's maybe a little more

crass way to, to a crass explanation. But in knowing the president, President Biden, and in knowing the people that were around him at the time and how, and how to, having spoken to him many times since I had left the White House. And recently, I think that that is true. It's not that he couldn't. I don't think he wanted to. And frankly, I don't think some of the people around him wanted him to. Because remember way back when Joe Biden did that, he did a press conference.

It was one of a few press conferences that he did at the White House. And it was maybe 40 minutes. And it was during that press conference where he essentially said that he doesn't know how Vladimir Putin could continue to be the president once this is all over of Russia. and then the next morning or the next day, actually, afternoon, people tried to walk back staff or walking back the president's comments. To be clear, Joe Biden said what a lot of people actually believe to be true, what he believes to be true. But the staff didn't like his answer.

And I just think, like, well, the president of the United States, this happens with Donald Trump a lot too. Like Donald Trump will say some things, and sometimes the staff doesn't like the answer privately. They'll be like, oh, but the difference is publicly they'll defend him. I think that whether you like what the president, whether you like the unfilteredness of the president or not at the end of the day, they are, in fact, the president.

But nobody is like kept Joe Biden in a box and was like, you can't do this. Simone, hold on. We're just going to take a break for some ads. And I'm back with Simone Sanders Townsend from MSNBC. So let me ask you something. When we saw him at the now infamous debate with Donald Trump, he didn't appear to be capable of finishing certain sentences. That can't be the first time that that had happened to him.

Did people in the White House know that he couldn't do this? I don't understand how he could get to that debate in that condition, and people in the White House have not seen that. Yeah, I don't know. I had never seen that when I had worked for Joe Biden. And I was looking at the debate shocked just as much as everyone else, texting the people whom I know had been in debate prep and said, well, what is going on?

And they all said the same thing, right? He has a cold. He's been traveling. But again, this goes back to like the mechanics. As you want to put your candidate in the best position to succeed. So if you remember, the president had just done these back-to-back trips to Europe. He'd had 10 days at Count David to prepare, though. He was out campaigning domestically.

I just don't think the schedule voted well for what they had going on. Okay. So you just pointed out that Donald Trump fell asleep for 20 minutes in the White House. He's also had a crazy schedule. Should there be an age? cash off for the president. I'm not going to go so far to say like, oh, if you are, you know, X amount of age, you can't be the president.

But I do think that this is what primaries are for, right? This is what, this is the way our system is set up, that the people get their opportunity to evaluate who they think the president should be. And I do think that that is what primaries are for. Primaries are supposed to be a rigorous, that is a test of the candidate. So, you know, if they're up to the case, up to the challenge or not. Should there have been a primary for the successor to Joe Biden? You mean after he?

After he stepped aside. After he decided he wasn't going to be the Democratic nominee? Well, after that infamous debate. Okay. After the infamous debate, he was still the nominee up until July. But the fact the infamous debate pushed him into eventually having to step aside. I just don't know when a primary would have been had. Well, you would have had it at the DNC, right?

You would have had an open convention. And how do people think that would have been? worked out. I just, I think that it sounds good. But I think mechanically, you know, I used to be a D&C member. I was a D&C member for about five, almost six years. And so the mechanics of the, of the Democratic National Committee and the membership, there's like 500 something, there's a couple hundred delegates that will make the decision that would have made the decision about who the nominee is. I don't think the strongest position for the party and the candidates on the ticket up and down the ballot, not just the top, but I'm thinking, you know, the House members, so on and so forth, the state legislative folks would have been to have a wide open convention where you didn't know what was going to, what was going to be the culmination of that. And then you would have, because the commission was at the end of August, essentially. So you would have September, October, and November to run a robust campaign and win.

I think that that is bad politics and it's just unfounded. You worked for Carmel Al Harris. she isn't running for governor of California. And what appears to be happening is that she's gearing up to run again in 2028. Should she? I think that she should do whatever she wants to do. The question I think a lot of people are asking, well, do you think that she will, should she run because do you think she can win? I think if Kamala Harris decides to run for president, knowing her,

it is because she has calculated that she can win the race in a primary, that she can become the Democratic nominee again. it's too early to tell. I think these midterre of elections, frankly, coming up, will give a better roadmap of kind of where people are. And then what the vice president does in those midterms. Remember, going back to 2019, 2020, nobody thought Joe Biden was going to be the Democratic nominee.

I know. I interviewed with all those people and I ended up working for Joe Biden. They were like, he is the last person that's going to win this race. What was it that made you change your mind? I think the president had a very, then-Vice President Biden had a very clear reasoning for why he was in the race. and what he wanted to do, and he had relationship with people in the states that I think, that I thought would bode well for him.

He had a very clear vision on what he wanted to do that was a little inspiring, but also pragmatic. And knowing Democratic primary voters, like, this is what they're looking for, and his proximity and association to Barack Obama very much so helped him, to be very clear. You know, he served with her eight years. Look, I think that Kamala Harris, she could be the nominee in, 2020, pardon me, 2028, maybe. The primary is going to be very robust.

And again, at this time, prior to 2008, we didn't know it was going to be Barack Obama. Everybody thought it was going to be Hillary Clinton. And then Obama emerged and things happened within that primary and he came out victorious as a Democratic nominee and went on to become president.

So she could be, it could be her, but it could also be somebody else. I just think though, given what we dealing with right now. Anybody that thinks they want to be president, put your name in the hat, honey, go. The people that are saying, well, Kamala Harris should not run again. Well,

I don't think Kamala Harris is the reason she lost her race, to be honest. I think the people that were running Kamala Harris' campaign made very strategic missteps that resulted in the race not being victorious. How you got a billion dollars you spending money advertising on the spear, but people, organizers

in Nevada and Arizona, organizing African-American Latino communities can't get their budgets approved. Make it make sense. It doesn't. Okay? And we see how it all worked out.

So I just think that she could be one, but I also think it's a very large undertaking. You made the point earlier that she wasn't on the campaign trail in Virginia or New Jersey. And if I were one of the folks advising the Virginia and New Jersey campaign, I wouldn't have asked for her because that is a look back. Like these campaigns should not have been about relitigating what just happened. And it was too fresh. for voters. So we'll see what Vice President Harris does over the next couple of months and

weeks. Is she out there on the campaign trail in the midterms for folks? She was out there for Prop 50. She was at the rally. She raised money for it. She was a part of the media campaigns. But what else does she do in these midterm elections? Where is she asked to campaign? Okay. So you're now a co-host on MSNBC. Are you planning to get back into the races in 2028. Do you want to go back into the White House again if you can find the winning candidate? I'm very happy with what I'm doing now, Joanna, and I do not desire to go back on the campaign trail. Look, when I left the White House at the end of 2021, beginning of 2022, I left on my own volition, right? You know, people asked me to stay. I could have stayed. But I wanted to do something different.

And when I came to MSNBC, soon to be MS now, I, this was me making a pivot. I love politics. I love campaigns. I also love media. And when I left the White House, I decided that I didn't want to like go away, right? I didn't want to, but I wanted to go do something where I could still be impactful, influential, have conversations and just be a part of this ethos and apparatus. And what we do at the weeknight every Monday through Friday is we are having those real conversations. I was in Cleveland about a week and a half ago. And people were coming up to me at this event. I was, you know, for one of my. mentors and they said, oh, I feel like I know you. We have dinner together every night. And that is

what we want. When people are sitting down watching our show, they are sitting down, they're having dinner with us to have a cocktail or their water or their juice or whatever it is. They're drinking and their meal. And we are discussing what happened that day, what's going on in the world and the ethos of politics. And we're giving our take and our analysis. And we hope that you walk away with just a little bit of a deeper understanding or thinking about something differently that maybe another show didn't show you. So no, I'm very happy with what I'm doing now. I just, you know, I'm not trying to leave my free makeup, Joanna.

I just, there's nothing. Nothing that's going to take me away from the front of free lipstick. Nothing better than those makeup artists at MSNBC. Shout out to Shai, okay. She's great. What did you think when you saw the new signage in gold go up for the Oval Office? You want to know my honest initial thought was? who doesn't know who doesn't know it's the Oval Office

because who needs to sign? What is this about? Why does the president have so much free time? These are the questions we need to be asking. Why was he so intimately involved in the renovating of a bathroom and the residence? Help me understand, given everything that has happening out here in this country, how the president has time for this. So you spent a ton of time working in the White House.

What did you think when you woke up and discovered that the East Wing had been totally demolished? Oh, I couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe it. And my first thought was what they are building is essentially going to be bigger than the structure of the White House itself. I think the White House is only about like 55,000 square feet. And what Donald Trump, this ballroom that they're saying, their building is almost twice the size of that. So how does that work? But also, you know, the Piac operations, the bunker, if you will, the White House, it sits below the East Wing. When I saw the photos of like the digging and how deep, I, I, this can't just be about the ballroom. So what else are they building? What else are they doing? There is a lack of, the lack of transparency about what is actually happening there. Those were all the questions that were elicited for me. And then what the companies that bought in or that gave money donations to the ballroom, why did they do that? Like, what was their reasoning? And I just heard Jamie Diamond last week. I think he did an interview on CNN with Aaron Burnett. And she asked why J.B. Morgan Chase

did not give to the ballroom effort that, you know, a lot of other companies did. Why didn't you? And he essentially said, because they deal with a lot of, they have a lot of, they have their hands in a lot of different pots and that they have to be conscious of what the next Justice Department would do or say about their participating in something like this. And that just made anticipation. tennis go off for me. So what did the other companies get for doing this? I think that there are a lot of questions. And frankly, one of the things Congress could do, if Democrats do get back the house, is to aggressively investigate and do some oversight around that. Will you be watching the Amazon documentary about Melania for which our First Lady has gotten paid $40 million? I will be skipping

right on past that on prime. Simone Sanders Townsend, I don't think there's anything you don't have an opinion on. And I bet the Democrats wish you would come back and handle their campaigns for them. But thank you so much for joining us. Thank you. Okay. So what I found really interesting about that was that Simone worked in the White House and knows when something like the president falling asleep doesn't command panic among the people around him. It's because they're familiar with this behavior and he's done it before. She knows because she saw it herself with a deal. And she saw it herself with a different president. So if you have been, thank you for joining us. Don't forget to subscribe to this podcast. We are independent media, so we really appreciate your support. And feel free to leave a

comment on Simone's point of view. Don't forget, as our first lady would have us, be beast, and a special thank you to our be beast level members. Come on, how can you not join and be a be beast level member. Come on. Herbie, Andrew Mella, full via Orlando, Las Condé, Sandra Clark, Bonzo, Val Love, Francisco, Bocococ, D.C., Karen White, Heidi Riley, Connie Rutherford, Sharon Shipley, and Andrea Hodel. A special thanks to all of you. And thank you to our production team, Devin Roderino, Anna von Erson, and Jesse Millwood. And we'll be back tomorrow with Inside Trump's Head. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts.

If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the Beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up today.