The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart - Democrats Actually Win Something with Chris Hayes and David Plouffe

Episode Date: November 6, 2025

Following Democrats' decisive Tuesday wins, Jon is joined by MSNBC's Chris Hayes, host of "All In" and author of "The Sirens' Call," and David Plouffe, former Obama campaign manager and White House senior advisor. Together, they dissect the election results, explore the tension between political consulting and authentic campaigning, and discuss what this election reveals about candidates and messages that can genuinely resonate with voters. This podcast episode is brought to you by: QUINCE - Keep it classic and cool this fall— go to https://Quince.com/ TWS for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. GROUND NEWS - Go to https://groundnews.com/stewart to see how any news story is being framed by news outlets around the world and across the political spectrum. Use this link to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription. SURFSHARK - Go to https://surfshark.com/stewart and use code stewart at checkout to get 4 extra months of Surfshark VPN! Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast> TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod   > BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/theweeklyshowpodcast.com Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic  Producer – Gillian Spear Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Music by Hansdle Hsu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ladies and gentlemen, it is Wednesday, November 5th, this is the weekly show podcast. My name is John Stewart. And are you hearing something in my voice? You may be hearing something in my voice. In my voice may be something called hope. A little bit of hope. Hasn't been in there in a while. Last night's election was the kind of election night that I haven't seen since I was a kid, it hearkened back to those old election nights when the polls would close at eight and they'd be like, okay, that's it. And I know all the networks had gotten their election teams and their political pundits and they'd gotten all the desks set up in the election center and the magic TV and all that. And they were ready to go for, you know, the eight to 12 hours that

they were going to do to try and discern the closeness. And it was just a fucking eight o'clock at close and at 8.30, they're like, yep, we're calling it. Clear, decisive, really, I thought, positive results all across the board. Mikey Cheryl, Spanberger, Mamdani, Prop 50. It, you know, even these races in Georgia and everywhere else, it turns out, and again, I am not a political consultant. And by the way, we're going to have on a really smart political consultant and a political analyst. But it may be that when the President of United States tweets out a video of him dumping diarrhea on the American public, they find that slightly dismissive. And maybe that's what all this is. I don't know about the argument of populism versus security state Democrats or

moderate democracy, all that. But I think I do know that the arrogance and dismissiveness and chaos and in competence of this administration's first year has to have a result. It has to. And it seems like it does. It seems like a direct result of those elements within our society. But other people know better. Let's talk to them. Let's bring out our guests and dive right into this sunny day that has been in a sea of monsoons.

so let's let's go right in oh so on this very historic day uh here in the tri-state area we are delighted to be joined by chris hayes host of msnbc's all in with chris haze author of the number one uh times best-selling book the sirens call that's new york times best son that's no bullshit time that's no that's no times from around the world and david pluff campaign manager white house senior advisor to barack obama last 10 plus year spent time as an executive in the corporate and non-profit worlds, but he's back now talking politics with us. Gentlemen, I just, people are, I don't know if they're listening to this or if they can see it on the YouTube. I just lift it out of my chair. That kind of night. Last night was a night that that Democrats have

not had. Even in 2020, it wasn't that even when it ultimately, days later, it was determined that Biden had won and then a few people rolled out into the streets and San Francisco and danced. Last night was just one of those crisp, clean, polls, closed, they win more than normal. Don, Chris, what was your impression last night? That was exactly my feeling, too, and it's funny because the outcome, there's the outcome and then the benchmark you had for the outcome going in. It's funny you mentioned 2020 because in retrospect, when all of a sudden done, And it was a big, they won the national popular vote by four and a half points.

They won both houses. It didn't feel that way that night. There was a bunch of polling that had suggested like Sarah Gideon is going to beat Susan Collins by eight points. And that didn't happen. There was a bunch of house races. So there was this expectation and then reality. Last night, the expectation was, you know, Spamberger wins fairly easily. Cheryl in a neck and neck race.

You know, we think Mom Donnie's ahead and we think Prop 50. And it was just boom, boom, boom, boom. you know, 15 point victory in Virginia. Cheryl absolutely waxes Chittarelli. Mom, Donnie's called at 945. California is called at pole closing. Right. So that was, I totally agree that, like, that just emotional experience of the night was

something that we haven't had in a while where it was just like clean sweep, Dems win, and they outrun the polls, I would also note. That was the other thing that did that. It's, I don't know if you guys are gambler men. Certainly I don't recommend it. But in football, man, it's, there's always there's, you know, you can take the money line, you can go with the spread. They beat the spread. They beat the spread, exactly right.

David, when was the last time you can recall the Democrats beating the spread in that manner? It's 0608, because even though 18 was a good year, Republicans won a bunch of the Senate races that were targets, you know, the Florida governor is you really have to go back to 06 and 08, where it was, you know, won everything, won everything with massive margins and cases historical, turned around trends like to say, County, New Jersey is the best example of this. You know, a county that's been reliably Democrat that actually Trump won in 24. And Cheryl won by, I think, like 15 points. A lot of Hispanic vote there. And one everywhere. I mean, Supreme Court races in Pennsylvania, won over 60 percent of the vote. Georgia. Georgia. Statewide. And these weren't close, right? And so it was, it was as dominating a night as Democrats have had in almost a generation. Yeah. It was amazing. And I guess the question next for both of you is, how will they squander it?

How will it all go to not? How will they piss this away? Chris? Well, I, so look, I think there's basically three elements to the victories, right? There's what we call thermostatic public opinion, which is when one party has a White House, the other party tends to do better in the off-year elections. Right. You know, it's why the, you know, Chris Christie and Bob McDonald won in 2009, right?

a year into Barack Obama. They won Jersey and Virginia. Are those thermostatic things? Are there metrics for that? Is that more? Because they're also not related again to sports, but there are a lot of correlations that are not causation. Is there a sense that thermostatic opinion is also caused? It's causal. I mean, there's a pretty good political science literature that suggests people tend to look at the party in the White House as the, you know, doing stuff, doing too much, doing stuff they don't like. It reminds them of why they oppose them in the first place. So it's a pretty reliable thing.

So you've got that at the base layer. Then you've got like Donald Trump is really unpopular. Like it's not just. How dare you? How dare you, sir? How can I say this? They're going to cancel me. No, it's, you know, he's at 39%.

You know, the national mood is dyspeptic and disgruntled and the wrong track numbers are through the roof. And then the third layer is what can Democrats control, right? Those first two things they don't make. The third layer is candidate recruitment messaging campaigns. And I think on that, you know, that's the place you're talking about how they're going to screw it up or how they're going to build on it. That's the place where they can control stuff. And I think they did a lot that was right last night.

I'm curious, David's a professional here, that meant that Spamberger won by 15 and not by 8. And that Cheryl won by, you know, 12, I think and not by 6. And then Mom Donnie got over 50%. They could have won those races to the point you're making up being the spread by less, with worse campaigns. And if you look at the Attorney General in Virginia, who won by five points and had a pretty brutal scandal, it reminds you that it does matter what you're doing that campaign. It doesn't matter who the candidate is. And so that's the place to think about how to build on or what to avoid if you're the Democrat. But how much does it, Matt, you know, to that point, David,

when you got a candidate in Virginia who's, you know, got messages like, I'd like to kill all these people. You know, generally that is. No, I seriously want their child to. I seriously want them to die. You know, that's, I don't want to say box office poison, but generally, that is not considered a positive closing message, but as far as the professionals go, look, and by the way, I still believe it. I think the Democrats are still a mess. I truly believe they're a mess just because there is, what this shows to me is, again,

there is this underlying potential energy within the United States of America that is much larger than I think any of us could have imagined. And channeling that energy directionally will be the challenge for whoever wants to harness it. I still don't believe they're doing that. But tell me why all those things came together in the manner that Chris was just describing. Well, I think just to build on Chris, so, you know, this year's a long time. But as we look at 26, I think the atmosphere should be just as good if not better for Democrats. It's not just trumpets that they're in complete control and people are deeply dissatisfied, right? So I think where the campaign comes in is the quality of the candidate is always the most important thing. And I'll come to that in a minute,

but the piece of messaging, are you maximizing the critique against Republican opponent as much as you can? So, for instance, all these House Republicans, I guarantee you by the summer and fall, are going to suggest somehow they oppose some of the stuff Trump did and they're independent And so the job of Democrats writ large is to make them own their weakness and their fealty to Trump. And then the big part where I agree with you, John, where the Democrats are still too much of a messes, the Republican brand is terrible. We kind of have a market failure. 80% of the country doesn't like either option.

So if we become stronger, if we have candidates who seem different, they're good at critiquing Republicans, but also seem that they want to challenge the status quo and say the Democratic Party's gotten some things wrong. They come from interesting backgrounds. You know, they're willing to say, like, I think the strongest Democratic candidates next year will probably be people who say, look, listen, if I win my House or Senate race, I'm not going to vote for any member of the current Democratic leadership. Like, that says to voters, this is somebody different. So I think that Cheryl and Spanberger, yeah, they've been in Congress for a while, but they ran as outsiders in 18. You know, there were these national security, never ran for office people. Mondami, obviously very different.

So there's a recipe there. the other thing is they were just relentlessly on message. They didn't get distracted by anything. It was all about cost of living. Now, they're now executives. So their biggest challenge will actually be delivering on what they promised as mayor and governor. But I think, John, I agree with you. And for me, I think about the 26 and 28. And I'm most concerned about this. We have five Supreme Court justices that are over 65. So between now and 2040, let's say, three, four, five. Like, the court could go back to being more progressive 5-4, or it could go 8-1. And we live in a time where even if we win the White House and hold it, which is super hard to do, I'm sure we'll talk about that later, if the Republicans can control the Senate, they will not confirm a replacement for a leader or Thomas. So where do we have to go? We have to get to the point where we reliably gain and maintain power and hold the White House in the Senate. And we have a long way to go because Virginia and New Jersey are not Iowa and Ohio and the Sunbelt. So that's where we have to get to as a party

is can we maximize Republican weakness, but also maximize Democratic strength. You put those things together. That's how we become more competitive in more places, which for the fate of the nation is what we have to do. So it feels to me, and this is going to be a complete, you know, projection or speculation, that this election was about Republican weakness. for the most part it turns out dumping diarrhea on people that are protesting from a plane or throwing a great gatsby party in the middle of food stamp benefits running out may not be maybe viewed as smug and condescending by much of the electorate so there's that but what i hear on television is should they go progressive or should they go uh you know uh security state

moderate and in New York City it worked in progressive but in Virginia and New Jersey there those people are more normal and you're going to want normal people to do normal things and it all seems like bullshit to me in the sense of the simplicity of this a government that very simply says we haven't been delivering to what are clearly the needs of the people and whatever those needs may be we must deliver that in a much simpler, more agile, and fast-moving way. And that's where the Democrats, to me, have failed whatever they're saying, whether they're saying, I want a government-run grocery store, or I'm going to make sure that I lower your property taxes.

It's knowing what the people you purport to represent seem to need. And that's where I think they actually can learn a lot of lessons from Trump. Who doesn't give a shit about the ways he just looks at it and goes, I'm going to do that. Now, he's done it incompetently and hamhandedly and dismissively and condescendingly. But what do you think of that formulation? David, I'll start with you. Well, I think, yeah, there's no question that there's, listen, we should always listen to the voters. And the voters have been very clear their sense is the Democratic Party.

large has not been focused enough on the problems that they care most about. And even when we do pass legislation, that's like the easy part in a way. It's like, how do you execute on it? How do you make it timing? Mom, Donnie's a great example of this. I mean, he's talked repeatedly in his campaign about going after government waste. The video that really propelled his campaign in the beginning was at the halal truck where he talked about cutting regulation. So, but John, I will say this. So I think Spamberger and Cheryl, last night in those states, it wasn't just about Republican weakness. They were kind of, they were not just like a safe alternative, but kind of a good alternative. So that's what we want.

But I actually think Democrats, there's a big opening here. We have fallen into a trap where there's basically any kind of attack on government we feel like we have to defend. And if you go back to like Obama and Clinton, two Democratic presidents, Obama, I was part of this. We're going to look at every regulation on the books and get rid of ones that don't make sense anymore. And there was thousands of them. Clinton reorganizing government. Was that good politics? Yes, but they both understood, hey, we're Democrats. We believe that government can play a constructive force in people's lives. I think Mondami gets this. So why don't we be the first person to say when it's being inefficient or too slow? We're not going to tolerate that. By the way, Daniel Lurie in San Francisco, the new mayor is a good example of this. Great example of this. Just, you know, focusing on things like crime and homelessness, but also cutting tons of red tape. Like there's a saying that I think is a, I think it's a, I think it's. Abner Mikva, the legendary Illinois political fear. I think it's associated with him, which is sometimes Democrats come across as if they love humanity and hate people. And we need Democrats who are like

people, they're kids only in first grade one time. They're renting this house one time in their life. They're trying to open a small business. We should be in an athletic posture, you know, saying that we are going to deliver for you. And there's a huge opportunity there because I think the Republicans have not shown skill there. And they don't give a shit about people. so if we care about people they they give a shit about certain people yeah so i wouldn't say that they don't give it they love america they just hate about 52 percent of the people living it's not i don't think it's that they don't give a shit about anybody hey folks you probably listen to the podcast here you might even be watching it and uh you're

wondering how i decide on my fashion for the podcast or you're not wondering that because you realize I pretty much wear the same thing every time. But it's because I like to be comfortable. I like a nice t-shirt, a nice sweatshirt. I like, that's how I roll. But you know who I's got the really comfortable and affordable clothes? Quince, Quince! That's why I'm recommending them.

I'm the new Oprah. Recommending clothes. You know, a lot of people tell me, ditch the t-shirts, try something new. I see you in the comments there. And I might. I might head over to Quince, pick up one of them there, $50 Mongolian cashmere sweaters, although it's a lot harder to say than just t-shirt. Maybe wool coat, maybe some jeans. Quint sells everyday comfort at a fraction of what you'd expect

to pay by partnering directly with ethical factories and top artisans. Quince cuts out the middlemen and delivers premium quality at half the cost of other high-end brands. So you can give luxury quality pieces without the luxury price tag. Look like me. But for half the money. Give and get timeless holiday staples that last this season with Quince. Go to quince.com slash TWS for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com slash T-W-S.

Free shipping, 365-day returns. Quince.com slash T-WS. So here's my point. I think Democrats have enormous runway on a lot of issues if we will seize it. And by the way, to your point, not get caught up into this left versus right, Democratic socialist versus right of center. If we can say all comers can come, probably the one thing that unifies us is those Democrats will all believe, A, we should not be on autocracy. And two, we should have an economy that works for working people. We should be focused on that. And everything else to me, let them be who they are and talk about the stuff they can. care about. And if we do that and deliver, I think we can really, I don't want to overstate it because we live in a divided country. But is it possible over the next decade? We could get back to being competitive in five or six more places than we are today and have a better chance than we do today of winning 50% of the vote in these places. It's possible in part because the Republicans are so weak and they're trapped with Trump. They are not going to change who they are

until at least 2030. So we've got to fully maximize this moment. Opportunity exists. And Chris, to that point, what most encourages me is the energy that comes from younger people who seem to understand this on a molecular level that the, and the Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer leadership appears to be representing Democrats right after, you know, the Republicans released their contract for America. Like, they seem to be of a very different time style and purpose. Are you hopeful that they have the energy, the understanding, maybe not through the National Democratic Committee, but on a grassroots level? Yeah. I think it's interesting to look at the polling last night to the extent we have exit polling on young voters, right? Because

there was, you know, there was this story that was told about, you know, the sort of rising tide of the Obama electorate and this was going to be this kind of permanent quasi-perman majority. And actually, you know, people poo-poo that now, but actually it did produce like a series of national majorities. The electoral college kind of messed with that, but it was actually a pretty successful coalition for a pretty long time in some senses. Last election famously, young men broke for Trump. There's this tendency in political punditry where we have one dot here and one dot here and we draw a line and we just keep drawing it all the way. Like, well, at this rate, 99% of young men will vote for Trump in a year. It's like, well, it doesn't work that way, right?

So last night, what did we see? We saw young men breaking for the Democrat by huge amounts, both Cheryl and Spamberger by double digits, 15, 20 points, Mamdani plus 40. So what does that say? It says that to me, this sort of anti-establishment or like distrust of the incumbent, right? Like the system's not working for me. It also says to me young people are some of the most exposed to higher prices. Like they are almost definitely some of the most price-sensitive voter.

I remember when I was 24, like, I was a lot more price sensitive to 24 when I'm in I hadn't been described as price sensitive, but yes, I have been. I was cheap as hell. Sort of like a shellfish allergy. You're a little price. You're gluten and price sensitive. So like, to David's point, it's like the voters have been very clear on this, right? Like the system, the cost of living, things are too unaffordable.

I can't get ahead. I'm concerned about the economy. That is also the sweet spot of overlap of the different Democratic facts. It's also the thing that young people are most focused on. And, you know, the last sort of element of this, which I think Mamdani really got, and this, I think, is a harder thing to kind of spread around is just in the way Barack Obama, sort of the people, he and the people around him were sort of generally native to new forms of communication. Mamdani has been that way. And I think that matters a lot. There's a certain kind of charisma and comfort that he had with particular forms that reach younger people that was part of that really genuinely electric thing that he put together in New York City.

That's a little harder to replicate, but you've already seen like James Telerico in Texas. You know, Jeff Jackson, who's kind of a much more centrist figure, he's the Attorney General in North Carolina, experimenting with forms that are similar from different ideological profiles. files, right? But speaking to young people and to people everywhere in the same way. So I think that's an unbelievable point. And I want to talk about that a little bit because sometimes I think we confuse the medium with the message. And when they talk about, well, he understood TikTok or he understood Snapchat or he understood Instagram. But what he understood more than anything was how to connect like a human being with people, whether that if I feel like if Mom Dani had been doing fireside radio chats, they would have been successful.

And I do think it reminds me of years ago, the news magazine show, 2020, decided they were going to appeal to young people. And so they did 2020 downtown. And 2020 downtown was 2020 with John Cignonese wearing a black leather jacket and standing outside. And the young people were like, who is this whippa snapper in a black leather jacket? And that gets to, I think, the next part of the conversation which is David it's tell me about the consultant class that talks about this because I think we make the mistake of confusing these new forms with what is at the heart of this which is politicians that connect with human beings in a real way whether it's face to face or on the radio or on television because they love these people that care about these

people and they are not focused grouped to within an inch of their lives so as to appear false. Yeah, well, listen, historically, and I think that's even more true today with the social media world, the most successful candidates are authentic to who do they are, who have a very good idea about why they're running for the office they're running for, have core beliefs. And what a good campaign team does is just, okay, let's figure out the best way to communicate that and then acquire the votes we need to win. So candidate quality and their message is always at the top of the pyramid. But Chris's point's important, and obviously he has spent a lot of time researching and writing about the attention economy. So the reality is a candidate and campaign team who says, we're going to

really think about TikTok and YouTube first, but they're a crappy candidate with a poor message, they're going to be unsuccessful. But if you're a good candidate with a good message, to fully maximize your votes, you do need to think, what is your campaign? It used to be, if I have something to say, what speech am I going to give? What interview am I going to give? I'm not saying you don't do those things today. The most important thing to do is what is my TikTok video and piece of content? What's my YouTube piece of content? What's my content on Instagram Reels? Reddit. And those are not the same. This is what Mondami understood. And I think it was he didn't have to go to school, Chris. He knew this. This is how he lived his life. But certainly, Mikey Sherrill and Spanberger in particular,

do not. Mo, but they had active TikTok. They had active YouTube. So my point. But the content on TikTok is the content that you generate. It's like the daily show. The daily show can be on TikTok or Instagram or any, but that's not the content. The content is what we generate on the show. What you say and how good you are communicating. That's right. But if you, right.

So none of the tactics and sort of, you know, multi-platform strategy work without a flawed content strategy or product. But my point is we do need as a party in Democratic candidates to think more through the, what is my windshield? field, as I think about winning elections. It's everything. It's still TV ads. It's still interviews, but it's TikTok and YouTube first. And I think that the better we do that, because there's about 40% of the electorate, that's the only way they get information. They never seek out information about politics. They encounter it. And they, so we just have to make sure, you know,

and TikTok's particularly challenging because you cannot pay for political ads. So it's all organic, it's relying on influencers. I think one of the Mondami's campaign did well, you know, they basically understood that we have to create content every day across these platforms. Now, to your point, John, that doesn't matter if it's not compelling. Like, some of his most compelling content was in the policy. It's how he interacted with people. This is a guy that clearly loves the city of New York that came through and love the people in New York. Yep. And there's no rather, where he'd rather be. But his message was really simple. On affordability. It was great. And he found different ways to bring that. So, so. Let's flip this, though.

Yeah. Because this, this I think is a really interesting discussion. We're talking about how candidates need to exploit all manner of communication to try and get their message out and that they have teams that are there to help them design those messages for each things. Let's look the other way. Can they take really good candidates and ruin them? And I want to talk specifically about Kamala. because I spoke with her last week on the podcast. My sense of what happened in that campaign is, and that's just one example, is that the strategists and consultants and pollsters basically wrung every last bit of light out of the eyes of what is a compelling and smart person. and, and I think continue to do a disservice. And David, you, you were there. Have these sort of, has the consultant strategist political complex destroyed in some measure

the talent and potential of many of these really good candidates? And does it continue to do that? Well, I was there. So what I'll say is, you know, and, you know, she was on your show, John, she wrote a book. I mean, it's pretty clear she ran the campaign she wanted to run, okay? And everybody, and I get it, like, if this ad or this tactic or this line had been different, she would have won. Let me just tell you, I've worked in politics a long time. I retired.

I came back for 100 days. Right. This was steep headwinds. Deeply unpopular Democratic president. No question. Unhappiness about the economy. In every battleground state, voters gave Trump's first term approval in the economy 50 plus, okay? The border out of control.

So, and this is, remember, Kamala Harris, she ran for president in 2020 and didn't even get to Iowa, okay? You know, so my view is we could have done a bunch of stuff differently. The biggest thing I think, and I don't think Trump would have bit was, you know, after the first debate, which was, you know, kind of her best moment. And I think all that did was get a bunch of voters back who had left Biden, but it got us in the race. And we said we'd like the debate again. We probably should have that night said we will debate on October 20th on Fox, make it. hard for him to say no. We should have done that because we needed big moments. But at the end of the day, should she have separated more with Biden? I think in the book, she says, I certainly thought she should

have. But, you know, she's talked about this. She's a loyal person. And the reality of that question would be, I would have liked her to go as far as she could. I would have liked her to say, I didn't think he should run. And I think he mishandled the border. And I think we didn't pay enough attention and prices. None of that stuff happened. She wasn't going to say that. So I just think we need to live in the world. But here's your point. The best case. campaigns I have either been part of or seen are, by the way, sometimes they lose, sometimes they win, are candidates who know exactly who they are, the issues that they're running on, there may be issues that aren't popular, but they're going to say, I'm going to stick by my values.

And basically, the campaign is there to support them. And I thought Kamala Harris ran a great race under the circumstances. You know, probably you would have said, by the way, the thing that struck me about that race was in the battleground states it was closer than the erosion. I wasn't paying much attention in that campaign and what was happening in New York or New Jersey or Connecticut. And when I started to see those numbers, I'm like, we're in deep trouble. And I think why she did a little bit better in the battlegrounds is they saw her directly talking about the economy a lot, prices a lot. I'll be a different leader than Joe Biden. But it wasn't enough. So at the end of the day, I think we should, that was going to be a tough race to win. Could we have won it potentially?

I think the key thing is, as we think about the House races, Senate races, the White House in 28, keeping in 32, the most important thing will be, are we putting forth candidates that capture people's imagination, that seem authentic, that are willing to challenge every status quo, Republican, the status quo, and Democrats, are they offering ideas that people can believe in? And to Chris's point, can they excite people? I mean, the most exciting candidate generally wins. Trump was an exciting candidate. Obama was an exciting candidate. And Clinton, Kennedy, particularly in the presidential race, because this is what's interesting about the moment we're in. I spend most of my life in politics where we did better as a party in high turnout elections. That's completely changed. Not last night. Well, but if you look at the turnout in some of these places, it was quite high. No, that's what I'm saying.

That turnout was high and they did better. But it was still less than a presidential year. So our big, that sort of wave in front of us that we have to somehow crest is in 28. there's going to be a much bigger turnout. It's a presidential year. And that's going to be harder for us to navigate unless we have a candidate that is exciting, that people believe in, who's saying things that they wouldn't expect necessarily a Democrat to say. If all those things happen, we can do this. But candidate qualities at the top, John. Right. But the point, David, I'm trying to make is the machine that we have designed to create candidates and their campaigns

antithetical to exactly what David just said. David just said the most exciting candidate. But the truth is that the machine that is around candidate selection and promotion and campaigns is risk-averse. It's the kind of thing that says, okay, you're going to, depending on what it is, candidates that are throwing a Hail Mary can say whatever they want. That's just why I loved when Al Sharpton would run. You knew he wasn't winning. But boy, was he going to make that debate fun.

Hey, do you guys follow the news? I follow the news. You know why I follow the news? Because I hate myself. And I want to be sad. We see headlines engineered all day, make us feel a range of emotions. Outrage, fear, hope, despair.

I just want my coffee. How dare they? Well, good news, folks. This episode is sponsored by Ground News, an app and website designed to help you see past the headlines and pass the spin. It allows you to quickly understand why we see so much division and news coverage. Ground news can pull hundreds of sources from around the world into one place for any story and lets you compare the left, center, and right perspectives.

They provide extra context on every story, showing the political bias, factuality, and ownership of the news outlets. This lets you follow the money and understand why narratives are shaped the way they are. If you want to move beyond headlines and start understanding how news really works, ground news provides the tools for transparency and comparison. It's the essential first step back towards finding a shared reality and staying informed. If you want to stay informed, go to groundnews.com slash steward for 40% off the vantage plan. This brings it down to $5 a month.

That's groundnews.com slash steward. It's $5 a month. less than a coffee to start understanding how news really works. That's worth it. So I want to ask, Chris, to David's point, which I don't dispute. I don't dispute the types of candidates that he's talking about are being successful. What I'm asking is, is the mechanism and machine and factory that we've set up around them isn't that designed to actually ring what David's talking about out of the process?

So I think that there's two distinct points, I think, to make here. So one is, and let me start with the defense of political consultants because I'm not one, so I'm not just talking my book. Which is to say, you know, there's this great line in James K. Wilson wrote the famous book about bureaucracy, right? And he's, you know, everyone hates bureaucracy, right? But he's like, what is bureaucracy? Well, bureaucracy is the thing that allows a bunch of 19-year-olds to run an aircraft carrier, right? And the point of bureaucracy, right, is that you have the normal distribution of talent, okay? You don't get to just be like, well, only the best people are going to run an organization.

No, you're going to have some that are good, some that are bad. And what a bureaucracy does is it figures out how to take the normal distribution of talent inputs and try to make a functioning institution. So think about- Did you just say fucking institution and then- Fucking institution? Right. So think about politics. scale, right? Like, yes, you want to recruit good candidates, but also there'll be some that

are good. There'll be some that are amazing. There'll be some that are not so good. Right. So you're dropping into a whole bunch of places at scale. Think of all those state races, all those like contestants. You need some kinds of mechanisms that are going to work across that distribution. Right. And that's, oh, that's an inescapable part of the enterprise. Now, the place where I think this critique is true is on this question of risk aversion. And right now, to David's point, have to look into the void, which is the Democratic Party brand is unpopular. You are playing from behind at a certain point. If you're playing from ahead, you can be more risk reverse. If you're playing from behind, you've got to throw the ball down field. And so I think the Democratic

party and consultant class has to internalize this idea of taking risks because you are behind, because the brand is not very good right now. And that means not just conservative. what you have. You are not up a few scores with five minutes left. You're saying don't play prevent defense. Don't play prevent defense. And I do think, and look, there are races where you should play prevent defense. Like I would have not told Spamberger, hey, you should do five debates down the stretch in the last two weeks. Absolutely not. You're up 10 points. Don't do that. Right. But generally, I think the risk calculation of the Democratic Party, its leadership generally is to risk averse. And let me just say one last thing.

The shutdown's a great example. They have pursued a fairly high leverage and high risk strategy around the shutdown. And I think it has, it has redounded to their benefit. And I think a more risk-averse strategy, which is people are going to blame us, we're the party out of power. It's going to be bad, all this stuff. These elections happened against that backdrop. I think the higher risk, higher leverage strategy they have pursued has been rewarded.

I think that should be a lesson for everyone about what your general risk profile. Yeah. Can I just say two things, John? So I agree with that. I think, you know, last night again, couldn't have gone any better for the Democratic Party. Amazing night. I think one of the risks is there will be a sense that things are better than they are. Right. So we have to guard against them. Right. So I will say back on your consultant thing. I'm going to, all right, you finish up and then I'm to yell at both of you. Yeah, but I think that the one place where I think there, it is, I mean, data makes us all smarter, right? We use it in the media business. We use it in the private sector. We use it in politics. I think there has been this movement towards like trying to evaluate everything

you do through the cost per vote. And, you know, you do ad testing. So you create 50 different ads you could run, whether they be social media or TV. And, you know, one is a 3.2 out of 5 and one's 3.5. So should we run a 3.5? And I think. we've really fucked ourselves in that regard. And I think that's where some caution comes in. Because I think the other thing about best campaigns are, is you're trying to tell a story here. And the forest is more important than the trees. And you really have to think about, I think, not necessarily, you kind of got to go a little bit more with your gut. It's like Luke Skywalker, you know, in the X-Wing, you know, basically puts away the technology and just goes with his gut, right? And I think we could use more

of that, right? Because, and but here's the other thing, John, plenty of consultants. I've made plenty of mistakes. There's some good consultants, as Chris said, some bad consultants. But the best candidates also don't get bullied around by their consultant teams. They say, I'm not going to say that or I want to say that. So your job is to figure out, like Barack Obama would say this to him. I'm going to say the thing you don't think I should say. So let's figure out the best way to say it. Right. So let me, here's my visceral reaction to parts of the conversation. One is this idea that because the Democrats are in the wilderness, they must take risks. But once they take those risks and gain a little bit more of a foothold, they must once again

retreat to that. I don't think they should. I'm worried they're going to be tempted to, but they shouldn't. Okay. But the second part of it is, is this. Democrats, I think, do really well running on the audacity of hope. And Democrats fuck things up by governing on the timidity of what they believe is possible through the rule change that are the north the american government is complex to the extent that if you want to stop something from happening there are enough poison pills in whatever uh amendment a of 13 you could make it so that we can't do anything but it's also complex enough that the truth is you can find a way to do anything it you can can subvert those very same things as we see Trump doing with, well, it turns out, in

1803, there was an emergency that they declared based on getting a steamboat. And so that's why I'm allowed to send the Navy wherever I want. Like, it's about imagination and about resilience, but it's about clarity. And my fear is this process that we're talking about, this analytical, process that is overly reliant on these teams that you discuss that the very nature of that you're right candidates can ignore it but when it when there's something there generally it will be used yeah and generally i think it has gotten too big too expensive i have you seen there is a great video of mike donlin being uh testifying in congress about what he would have gotten if Joe Biden had been elected.

And they were like, so what did he pay? And you know, Mike is very thoughtful. Do you think like, is he thinking or is he like, should I even fucking say this? Like, this is terrible. He's like, well, what did they give you? Well, you know, I got $4 million for that. And you're like, for what?

And then he goes, and if they got elected, what would you got? And he's like, I don't remember maybe another $4 million. And you're like, that can't be real. And so my point is, this thing has its own. it is a complex that will not seed its own power. And I think it is to the detriment of governance and good candidates. Well, I'll take this opportunity to make clear. I volunteered for Kamala Harris's campaign and had no windbows. Okay. No, here's what I say. I actually think

Congress pluff. Yeah, John, I will say this. This is actually more about people who've won office than campaigns. And this is not just about consultants. I do think where the caution has hurt us is, like, we are not as comfortable as we need to be about executing all the levers to gain power, maintain it, and use it. Okay. So even after last night, you're seeing some state legislators in states, Democrats, saying, oh, we don't need to change our lines to respond to what the Republicans are doing because, look, we're going to have a great year next year. Like, we have to gain every House seat we can. By the way, That's not popular with the general electorate necessarily, but it's what's required structurally

to make sure we win the House back. Like every state, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, everyone where there's a potential to win one, two, three more House seats, we have to do it because the Republicans aren't going to let up. Some of the things around Supreme Court reform and other challenges that I think don't necessarily pull well, but at the end of the day, I think we're required to make the progress we need as a country. So I think that's where some of the caution comes in when we acquire power. And I think that's much to our detriment. I think we have to change the way we think about it, which is, you know, we need a lot more Bobby Kennedy in the party than Teddy Kennedy in the party, which is we just need a ruthless MFer who understands none of it matters,

no matter how good your ideas are, and no matter how strong your values are, if you don't win. Because it's worthless if you don't have the power, and for the time you have it, you try and to deliver for the American people. So I just think that's a place where we have definitely, if not failed, been far from ideal. I don't know what you think, Chris. Well, to John's point, I think the Trump example is so illuminating, right? Because at one level, like, I have these moments where they're like, he does something and I feel like a little bit of like an illicit thrill where it's like, oh, it's like, I guess you can. 10% of intel. I like it. Like, I guess you can just do that.

Like, and here's what I would say, I think you're, you're identifying something absolutely true in the culture of Democratic Party politics, which I know better than the culture of Republican Party politics, which is a kind of lawyer brain. And I say this, you know, married and deeply in love with an admiring of my wife who's an incredible lawyer. Incredible lawyer. And by the way, strict scrutiny, a fine podcast. Thank you very much. It's a lovely. I agree wholeheartedly. We love her very much. Let the record show that Chris Hayes held up my street screen logo.

No, but here's here's the point. Two things I think I take away from Trump, right? One is, oh my God, you need lawyers and you need people that respect the law. And it's crazy to have this like bulldozer approach. But the second thing is there's some place between what Trump's doing and no, we can't do that because it's never been done that way. or because there's some memo somewhere that says we can't, that allows for more innovation and creativity and aggression. I use that word advisedly in pushing the envelope a little more than Democrats have been comfortable

doing. And that to me is one lesson. You do not want the lawlessness of Trump. But what you do, I think, want to copy is a little bit of this spirit of like it's a malevolent creativity in the case of Stephen Miller, but a little bit of innovation creativity. What, you know, to what you were saying, David, where Obama said, I'm going to say it, so figure out how to do it. Like, I want to do this. What can we do that is within the law to get there? Now, maybe it's never been done before, or maybe it might face a legal challenge.

But I want you to tell me how to legally do what I want to do. You need a John, you. Somebody that could go in there, go, just call it enhanced interrogation, and you'll be fine. Well, that illustrates the perils of it, right? But I do think, like, again, it's not one or the other, but I do think one of the lessons here is be a little more envelope pushing on, on some of this stuff when you do have power. And the other thing is, because right now we're still talking about in some respects the permission structure to do things. Yeah. Right.

The second part of that argument, and it's one I want to get your, your guy's opinion on, is what it is you want to do through that permission structure. and I think that's another area for Democrats. And I'll use the ACA as an example. And it's the one I kind of always go back to, which is Democrats at their heart, I truly believe this. Forget about when, you know, the platitude of health care is a right.

It's not a right. It's a commodity. And it's a commodity that doesn't serve itself well in the marketplace because there's too many externalities for it to function properly. So there's got to be a way to deliver health care to the people. the Democrats go through this incredible process to get the ACA and absolutely got more people insurance.

But I think if you asked most Democrats at their heart, is that what was wrong with our health care system? They would say no. What they would say is it's too complicated, no matter what, even if I have insurance, if I still get sick, I still go bankrupt. 40% of us are spending too much money on insurance premiums to the point where we have to make different decisions about where we're going to eat, or what we're going to drive or any of those other things. So not just the permission structure being streamlined. Are Democrats also not audacious enough in how they fix the problems? Is that something that you would also put into the equation?

Chris, start with you. I think this, the subsidy fight right now is a perfect illustration of it, right? Because at one level, the Democrats are on the right side of this, both politically and substantively, okay? So people's premiums are going to go skyrocket. We've all seen. We've heard the interviews. We've seen the screenshots, right, of them. And they want to pass these subsidies to stop that price spike from happening.

Right. But then when you take a step back, you're like, wait a second. Wait, why is this happening? Well, the emergency subsidy support was initially a temporary COVID piece of legislation. And when Republicans critique that, they've got a little point. You're like, wait a second, there's something wrong with the structure, such that was necessary is more subsidies to keep the cost down, right? And so one of the things. And remember, Chris, so connect that to why that's in there in the first place.

Because the reason it's in there in the first place is that the program was designed so that insurance companies wouldn't fight it. It wasn't designed because they thought that was the right thing to do. That was the thing they thought they could get away with. And I think, and David was there, so I'll let him speak on this. But the last thing I'll just say is one thing that I think you are identifying that I think is a broader question is, and you see it in this question about affordability, right, which shows up everywhere, cost living, is a democratic policy approach that has been to sort of let the market work and then do aftermarket transfers, often subsidies, subsidies for solar, subsidies for electric cars, subsidies for insurance premiums, right? snap is a subsidy right these are all different ways of and i believe in that i'm a liberal right but like what would it look like to make policy such that the prices were lower right or people had higher wages so that you didn't have to do all the aftermarket transfer now

easier to say on a podcast then to get past honestly because you're right that the the thing that killed previous health care reform was the insurance industry was dead set against it this stuff is complicated. But I think the thing you're identifying and I agree with is the current model in democratic policy making tends to be we have market distributions and then we have aftermarket transfers and subsidies. And that takes with no controls. So as it skyrockets, a great example. And David, we'll get to your response as well. Like, but here is the Democratic plan on student loan. Yeah, exactly. loan plan was, what if we forgive some of it? And everyone's like, sure, I guess, but are we going to, that's, the problem isn't that. That's the band aid. Yeah. That doesn't in any way. The costs need to come down. This is the key thing. That's right. How the three, the three pillars of middle class life, which are education, housing and health care, right? Can you go to the doctor? Child care and health care. Can you live in a place and can you get your kids educated, okay? And, and child care and that. The cost of all those things are too high. Now, you can subsidize against them. You could, you could, you can, you

And that's important, but some question of how do we get the costs down? How do we keep the cost down, I think, is key at a policy level. David, jump it. Well, first of all, I agree with that. I think as a party, we have rightly spent, I think, most of our economic time talking about not just the creation of jobs, but growth of wages. We should keep doing that. But from a math standpoint, if you're a family, you want wage growth, but obviously you want costs to rise either less or ideally come down. So I think for the Democrats to view that as a Manhattan project writ large, and that works

across ideology, which is I'm going to basically be on that wall trying to bring down every cost I can for you. At the same time, we try and grow wages is great. I would say first on the ACA, there is just, no one wants to talk about political reality, but the political reality is that's all that could pass, even though we had Democrat. I've got to disagree with that and say, you make political reality. And the reason I say that is we did the Pact Act and we did Zedroga. I was told over and over again what the political realities were. And we bent the political realities. We did.

Well, you did heroic work, right? No, no, no. It wasn't heroic work. It was. And it was effective and it was against the odds. No. In the trenches with groups that day in and day out were relentless. And so when I'm told, and I can tell you when we were writing that bill,

how many times we were in a room with VSOs, veteran service organizations, and representatives of veterans within Congress who would negotiate against themselves in the bill based on what they thought they could get done. And the hardest part of us working with them was convincing them to fight for what they thought would fix the problem.

That was the hardest part. Right. Well, so here's what I would say. I mean, one, that was a time where, while we had Democratic majorities, we had four Democratic senators in the Dakotas, Georgia, Louisiana, Blue Dog Districts. Like, yeah, maybe there would have been a better way to sell a public option, but I refuse to trash the fucking ACA. Right. That's my job. Which has delivered 20 or 25 million people health care.

It didn't fix the system, okay? But let me tell you, this is important. You want to get back to polling consultants? Yeah, yeah. Obama takes office in the financial crisis, has to bail out the auto industry, do more with the banks. Support for health care reform is in the toilet. And that wasn't because of bad storytelling because the American people are saying, you know what? We sort of want this sort of notionally, but like this has nothing to do with me losing my job. And he and a lot of

Democrats who almost all those Democrats then lost their seats took a tough vote. So I disagree with you that the public option could have been passed if we had been smarter. are more effective. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But it got all we can, and I think it's paid big dividends. I do think given not just general election voters, young voters, everyone's dissatisfied with the status quo. So I think you raise a really important question. I think it's whether it's our health care system, our education system, how we're going to do with AI, an aging population, the climate crisis, deficits out of control. I think there's more opening for Democrats to be more bold. No question. I really do agree with that.

And so I hope we see some people running for president who are willing to tackle these things. And by the way, the other thing is, I think our politics is too small. Like, we should win every election we can. And sometimes just because we want to cut taxes for the middle class and they want to cut them for the wealthy. Or we want to give people health care. We don't. That's very, very important. It's the lives people are living right now.

We have to win those debates. I also think people are hungry for like there's some scary shit happening out there and kind of what your view is a potential president about how to deal with it. I think there's an opening for that. So I think that this is back to your point about caution. I'd like to see more Democrats let it rip and say, this is the world we ought to live in. Even though there's complexities along the way, I think we would be well served as a country and a party if we did that. You know, I don't know what you guys are doing out there on the Internet, to be honest with you. I don't want to know.

I have an idea, actually. And I still don't want to know. But I know. Not that I actually know, but you know, keep it to yourself. And Surfshark helps you do that. Surfshark is a modern VPN designed with the user in mind, powered by robust security mechanisms, but also designed to be simple and intuitive to use.

It's not complicated to keep your internet activities quiet and safe. Surfshark is a VPN that encrypts all data sent via the internet. protecting your passwords, private messages, photos, videos, and other sensitive data. Whatever that may be, it ensures you stay safe on public Wi-Fi by encrypting your data, making it useless for people who steal it, not like useful data, for those other idiots who are just out there surfing away. Go to surfshark.com slash Stewart and use code Stewart at checkout to get four extra months of Surfshark, That's surfshark.com slash steward to get four months of the VPN. That thing that David just said about the country we want to live in, like, I think about this a lot about the notion of the American dream and how animating it is and how sort of distance it seems from our politics.

But I think a lot, like, okay, let's just start from like total blank slate. Like, what do you want to your life? Okay. Right. And, you know, a certain percentage of people want to be, you know, famous and wealthy and end up in the sort of top, you know, percent of the distribution. But I think most people, it's like, I heard Lula give a speech in Brazil once about this where he basically talked about like, you want a weekend barbecue with your friend and family where you crack a beer where you crack a beer. Where you crack a beer. No, literally.

Well, that's Brazil. Right. But he talked about like a little bit of space where you can crack a beer and your and your family's friends are over. And, like, I think about, like, well, let's get back to the most basics. What do we want to, what is the thing we want to be achievable, which is like a little bit of space for my family, a good education, health care, a job that I don't hate and a sense that I have a little space to, like, take a vacation and have people over for a barbecue. The thing we think of like the American dream, right, this certain level of comfort, not like luxury, you know, that. It really feels out of touch. It really feels like we have a sorting hat in America.

And it, it, you, it sorts you into, like, drudgery and brutal trying to make ends meet or, like, a few people end up at the very top. There's a kind of class in between them who are always fearful falling down. But I do think that it's useful for both policy and politics to start with that project of, like, what do we want to provide to people? boy that's a nice point as the thing at the end of all this and it doesn't have to be a yacht it's i want to have a barbecue and crack a beer and have a little bit of space and like that you know that these basic things i think that's an excellent i think that's an excellent point and it speaks to maybe something right now i think we are in a cycle that's a little bit of a lazy sus and a populism and it's either going to be coming around you know and ban and understood this very very well which is you know if i can take my native shit and fuse it with a populism that brings in I'm going to be able to peel away enough working class people in a variety of minorities that I'm going to get my you know my anti-woke project and and be able to work that through and the Democrats I think were slow to recognize they they use the language of populism but without in some respects the understanding of

so I'll give you an example David you speak to this let's tax the billionaires we shouldn't have billionaires and people are like oh okay uh what are you going to use the money for like if they don't believe well we're going to do we're going to forgive student loans you're like right but if to my point if you don't tie money to value for people and that's the missing piece and it's so frustrating to watch like going back to the common thing 107 days was not enough time okay it's been a year where's the non-incremental policies that aren't platitudes that tie money to value. Why is it so hard to develop nationally for the Democrats? Well, I think it's not going to come nationally. I think it's going to come

from individual candidates, right? Mondami had his flavor of that show. It's not going to come from Washington. It's not going to come from the DNC. It comes from candidates. And ultimately, our party will be defined by our next nominee. But until then, by these candidates in 26. So, John, I'm glad you raise this because there's this, I find it frustrating, uh, debate. which is, is it populism or is it abundance? And, you know, the truth is they swim together. So to your point, people would like to see the wealthy pay more. Some of that, a lot of that might even be punitive, which is not fair. It's not as strong as it should be because people don't believe that the proceeds will be spent in a way that delivers results for them, right? So this is where,

as a party, if we can be much more focused about that, and even being transparent when it's not working, right? So, so if we ask the wealthy to pay more, we can both begin to pay down our deficit, but also invest in things that are working. Right now, people aren't sure that the stuff we want to invest in is going to pay dividends. And so if you look at a Mondami or Cheryl or Spamberger, just to use them as an example, they're going to try and do some things. Now, their executives, which means half their job is just dealing with bad shit that happens on the launch. But then they're going to have stuff they're going to try and pass and they'll be successful in some and unsuccessful. But when they are, I think one thing we have to do a better job is doing the same kind of

intensive storytelling we do during a campaign when we're in government, which is we pass this and now a month from now, this person was able to get their small business open more fast or this person was actually able to get, you know, free training to become a plumber or whatever it is. And then when that stuff's not working, say it's not working. But if we fuse these things together, which is, yes, we would like the wealthy to pay more. I don't think it's really, we're still a country, by the way, people want to be wealthy. They want to be successful. So I'm not sure we should malign it, but say it's just fair for people to pay more. So that, and I think Democrats should say, A, we're going to use some of that to pay down deficit, which has gotten

dangerously too high. But we're also going to invest in things. And it shouldn't be invest in 20 things. It shouldn't be invest in amorphous things. Be very specific about what you're asking people to pay. I also think, John, we as a party, should be better. I think there's a sense from voters. I've seen this in research where they're like, Democrats just seem to want the tax money. And, you know, like it's hard for us to pay the taxes. Like, I'd like to see Democrats again. I think Obama and Clinton were good about this, which is, hey, if we're going to ask you to pay any taxes, we're going to be like so watchful of that. We're going to make it pay off.

We're going to ask you to pay as little. That's right. Right. Not to be flippant about it. To Chris's point, if you pay taxes, you know, you want to go on vacation. You don't want to be in debt. You know, you'd like to be able to big. holiday and birthday gifts for your families,

any kind of taxes that you pay makes that a little bit harder. And so I think we need to be seen as much more watchful. But I do think that if you put together the populist side of the wealthy and big businesses paying more, if we strengthen the other side of that

to what end and people believe it a little bit more strongly and clearly and we do good storytelling about that, we will be stronger. But I agree with you, it's not as strong as it should be because people question, okay, I'd like the wealthy to pay more, but I'm not sure that, that what am I going to get out of it other than I'm happy they're paying more?

We don't connect it to their lives in a way that is, that is meaningful. Well, it's even, I don't know if you've ever seen this. And unfortunately, I can't remember the site that we went on, once went on a site that basically breaks down your tax bill. And it's like 10 different. Taxpayer receipt, yeah. Taxpayer receipt, 10 different tranches. Well, the first five tranches, unless you're very old or very, very poor.

you don't see any of it. It's military, Medicare, Medicaid, service of the debt and something else that has really no bearing on the overwhelming majority of people's lives. So it's there in stark relief that disconnect that you're talking about. Yeah, I mean, most of it is, I mean, 70% of the budget is social insurance, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and defense, right? That's that that is what, you know, it's kind of it. Paul Krugman is like, you know, the federal government is an insurance corporation with an army. Right. And then everything else comes after.

And it spends too much of it on middlemen to deliver those services. It doesn't ever use its capacity as the largest customer of those things. It's like, do you guys remember, you know, when the Biden administration came out and said, hey, everybody, great news. The pharmaceuticals are going to let us negotiate the price for 10 drugs. drugs, right, yeah. And, well, not all 10, like six of them. But then a couple of years from now, we're going to add these other two. And you're like, right, but how many billions do we spend subsidizing these companies? And that's the worst shark tail, shark tank deal in history. Like, you know, we're going to give you $100 billion. And what do we get? Maybe we'll negotiate 10. Well, that's also just, I mean, part of that, right, is like a camel is a horse designed by committee. Right. It's like what the thing that you get at the end of the process. after being in the room and that, you know, those were brutal negotiations is something that's not as clean and straightforward. I think to David's point, one of the things is interesting

in the New York City mayor's race, right? These promises that Momdani's made are very, like, one of them, which is freeze the rent, okay? Now, this is really interesting because, A, memorable. B, two million people are in rent regulated apartments in New York. That's a lot of people. That's not like, it's not like some little subsection of people. And three, they have the power to do it. hilariously, because of a law signed by Andrew Cuomo as governor, which no one brought this up in the race, but it is really funny. Like, they did actually expand regulation, which the governor said. Now, that kind of thing doesn't, there's a, that's a little bit of a unicorn, okay? But the reason I bring it up is to David's point there about, like, it's direct, it's memorable, it applies to a lot of people, right?

Like, this is the kind of thing that is useful both in policy and in governing. Right now, Eric Adams is trying to stack the rent boards so that he sabotages them on the way out and we'll see if he, you know, the governing part of it's hard. But when you're looking for things that you can say to people of like, this is tangible, it's going to affect a bunch of people. And it's, I can say it in a sentence, you know, that's three words freeze for rent. And everyone knew whether they liked it or not. If you have some people opposed. Sure. Some of it might work.

Some of it might not. And that's fine. But at least it's fucking trying. But they know, right? They know what you're doing. Yeah. And it does seem like, you know, look, the argument for government is not that it does everything great. It's that something's got to be there to offset the power of corporations or fill in the gaps on things that corporations won't take on or can't take on efficiently. And specifically, David, is that, so this, let's tie it all together because I know you guys got to go and we're going to get to thing. And you have jobs and I don't. So here's where I think it ties it together. We talk about what's needed, which is this really imaginative new rethink about the government's relationship to its citizens and to creating policy and to being specific and to being efficient and to being honest brokers with the taxpayers about the value that they're getting out of the money.

money. And that seems like a really important large project. But if you think about our political world, where's the money? The money is in the consultant strategy pollster class. And this wraps us around to the whole thing. If our priority is the one side of it, why do we spend so much money and so much time and on the other side of it to the neglect of the part that we think will deliver better results for people and better electoral results. How has that happened? Well, I think, John, you know, New York's a good example of this where I think Mondami is charting an important course. Daniel Lurie is doing the same thing in San Francisco. I think Spanberger and Cheryl will as well. So I think that that reimagination that is still deeply progressive

that believes there's some things only government can do or there's something's only government can start. And we're going to invest in that. We're going to be transparent about what's working. That should be core to who we are. And I think you're going to see more candidates emerge. I do think what is interesting, the more we see, whether it's an Osborne or a Platner on one end, you know, people like Cheryl and Spangenberger would come out of the national security, Mondami. These are all different flavors of Democrats. And what I think is exciting about that, I think those people can be successful. But it means more people like them will come out. And we'll see more Democratic candidates emerge who hopefully start with, obviously I deeply oppose what Trump

and the Republicans are doing. But I also think we've not done a good enough job as the Democratic Party meeting the moment, either politically or substantively. And I think the rubber really hits the road in executive offices. Legislators, for the most, can just gasbag their way through their career, right? But executives have to make decisions. And that's why I'm excited about, you know, a Lurie in San Francisco or a Mamdami in New York philosophically seem very different, but they seem very focused on just making their cities work better for working people and for small businesses. And I think that can really show the way. Yeah, and livable because that's important. I think that's another place where, you know, there's a lot of people who thought that the Democratic Party,

And I'm not saying all Democrats, but we weren't as focused on the people that are living their lives today. And they deserve to feel safe and go to a good school and, you know, be able to open a business without it taking four years and, you know, 50 lawyers. And like Mondami talked, even though he's a Democratic socialist, as well about government working for people and changing as any Democrat I've seen in recent times. And so I have a lot of hope there. I'll throw one more name into this, which I think is really a useful model, is Michelle Wu. up in Boston, who is progressive, has governed as a progressive and has also been, I think, incredibly effective. Her approval ratings are through the roof. They didn't even have a challenger. She's one of the most popular mayors in America. And again, this is like proof as in the pudding stuff, right? Like, you know, you don't, if it doesn't go well, people are not happy at that level of governance. And I think a lot of the stuff that she's done in Boston is really interesting and shows it like this this transition from campaign to government which is really hard

is also not insurmountable like you can do a good job and then be rewarded by the voters who say no I'm serious like we like this like this is good like thank you and one other example and he's not the only one but Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania yeah right one of the things he's worked on is let me look at all the jobs that people in Pennsylvania are you know would like to have and where are we making the licensing requirements too burdensome in terms of time or money how do we make it easier for somebody to achieve their dream that's an example of great governance which is connected to like progressive values which is we want working people to have more economic stability and the ability to grow and build wealth but it's connected to like what's in their way and what's in their

way isn't always just a republican party sometime it's just regulation or laws that it made sense 40 years It's sometimes a Democratic Party, too, that to solve one problem, you have to solve every problem within that. We need more housing, but it also has to be carbon neutral and it also and there also have to be LGBTQ. You know, it's all that stuff. Because if you think about Trump, you know, foreign authoritarian, he's really unpopular. Like, when authoritarianes generally take over countries and do things by executive fiat, they generally become quite popular quite quickly. It wanes over time. But even guys like Duterte and C.C. And all these. You doing a weird backwards version of it i've never seen it's truly bizarre yes it's to see a guy go in to go

i'm just going to go i'm just going to do it the way i want to do it and that's normally that brings a certain order to people that have been feeling chaotic this is the opposite but to get back to the original point of of of that for all those things that you say can the democratic party pivot and spend the money that we're talking about more wisely in terms of governance on the very things that we're talking about, rather than the things that, rather, can we make their analytics departments smaller and make their connecting to voter departments larger? Will that happen? Or do you think it doesn't need to?

No, of course it does. And I actually think another connected to this is I think there is, you know, there are some Democratic politicians, those seeking office and those have attained it who would like to do something, but they're worried that some part of their base or a group will be opposed. Housing's a great example of this, right? I mean, some of the people who've opposed housing in some states, like build more housing at public transportation are environmentalists. Love environmentalists. But like housing is a great example where if I'm a governor or a mayor, like, and some of our like Newsom's really, I think, pulled a lot of the red tape out, but like, it's a mathematical. Like, we need in North Carolina a million and a half houses, or we need two million in New York or five million in the Southwest. And just say, you know what, nothing matters to me except reaching out. I go, why? Because our economy will be stronger. People will be safer. People to build wealth. People have shelter if we have housing. And so a good Democratic candidate, I think, would say, you know, we're going to make it a lot easier to build. We're going to make it a lot cheaper to build.

By the way, things like modular housing, which, you know, there's obviously some controversy around that because that doesn't create as many union jobs. But, like, that's part of the solution. Like, I think, John, part of this is like there's always reasons not to do things. But if you're faithful to your central goal, so in housing, it would be I need to build this many uses over the next five years. Sure. You're not going to get to let anything get in away that goal. And you're also going to narrate your progress and your setbacks along the way so people know that, like, the thing you campaigned on, the thing that was important is you're, you're, working on it every day. This is basic stuff, but it's really important. And to the last point,

just to finish this here, on the analytics, you also have to understand you're going to go through like a valley of death in public opinion when you're doing it often, right? Which is sometimes people voted for you to do this thing. They want to do this thing. And while you're doing it, they're like, I don't know about this. And you have to, no, I mean, this is, you know, congestion pricing. Congestion pricing is a great example. The ACA is a great example. That's where this question of the analytics and the polls versus your gut and your North Star really come to play. Because you have to say, I campaigned on this, I know this is going to be good on the other side. I understand why people are not happy right now. They're having second thoughts. And I'm

going to do it anyway because I'm betting on what I promised. And if they don't like it at the end of it, then I'm out. Then they get rid of me because I was wrong. But that's that really key place where you cannot, you cannot let the analytics push you off course. That's a great point. And, you know, what it tells us is, I always working in the West Wing, the thing that was furthest from the West Wing show was actually working in the West Wing. What Chris just described doesn't have to be, it doesn't have to be just an Aaron Sork and screenplay. Wait, the president just to just walk in and go, we believe that all people are equal. Yeah, if only. But I do think that doesn't have to be fantasy. I think that's a great point and let

the chips fall where they may. Right. And in this moment, of a rare good day for the Democratic Party and for progressives and for liberals around the country, important to remember for all of us, this can be done. It is not beyond our capabilities. It can absolutely be done. Guys, I thank you so much for the conversation. Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC Stiller. Where do you guys out? MS now. MS now. Is that, is the change already taken place? It's like in a week, I think. Is it like setting your clocks back? Are you, going to feel weird for like a day and then you'll be fine no it's fine i don't you know yeah who cares i'm still doing the show i work on comedy central right yeah exactly a name's a name uh all in with

chris hayes author uh the number one times bestseller the sirens call and david pluff campaign manager white house senior advisor to barack obama guys thanks very much for the conversation really appreciate it thanks john thanks john there you have it very appreciative of their insights uh we are short a little bit on time because of the lightness of when we're producing so we're just going to go to the thank yous for god's sakes because damn do i have a good staff uh lead producer lauren walker producer brittany mamedovic producer jillian spear video editor and engineer rob vatola audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, executive producers, Chris McShane, Katie Gray, can't do it without you guys.

Thanks again so much, and we'll see you next time. The weekly show with John Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Bus Boy Productions. Paramount Podcasts.