John Stewart here. Unbelievably exciting here. My new podcast, The Weekly Show. We're going to be talking about the election, economics, ingredient to bread ratio on sandwiches. Listen to The Weekly Show with John Stewart, wherever you get your podcast. You're listening to Comedy Central.
from the most trusted journalists at Comedy Central. It's America's only source for news. This is The Daily Show with your host, John Doers.
Cool. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the Daily Show. My name is John Stewart. It has been two weeks since the election. Two months. It's been 15 years since the election. It's been, I mean, this was me election night.
Was I ever that young? Or ever looked at handsome? But Donald Trump is returning to power, and so once again it is time to saddle up on the Lizzie's doll. Because, if you remember, before Trump won the election,
Democrats will clearide about the stakes. It's time that fascism is called fascism and Americans know exactly what they're voting for. He is paving the way to become a Vladimir Putin or to become an Adolf Hitler. He is a threat to democracy. He is a clear and present danger to our democracy, to our way of life. The damage may be irreversible. The destruction could be unthinkable and it would be a betrayal of everything that our framers fought for.
You're not even going to look up. You're not even going to. A little eye contact, a little inflection could drive the danger thing. You give it a little urgency.
I feel passionately. We should fight him on the beaches, in the field. God forbid the streets, the asphalt and the thigh.
Is it sad that the only thing that really makes it a Schumer impression is I put glasses on? Is that? Was it really that? I mean, you applauded literally just the glasses. I'm a pair of bifocals away from being Chuck Schumer's. You bastards! Now, I assume now that the Democrats have lost to the greatest fat we've ever faced as a nation.
that they will be forthright in acknowledging one, the Democrats role in this catastrophic defeat, and two, the bleak hellscape we now face. Or... We're proud of the fact that we've defeated more House Republican incumbents than they've defeated House Democratic incumbents. We did flip three House seats from Republican to Democrat and gain back almost all of those that we had lost in 2022.
Yeah, almost is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Yeah, we almost gained back all we had lost. Almost is kind of a load-bearing adverb. Spin-wise, finding a positive in what is clearly not good news. You kids, parents, good news, we gained back almost all of the children we lost on the field trip. Win-win!
It's a new dynamic. It is a willful, bright-siding, this shit show that we celebrate in our new segment called, The Audacity of Cope. Now, technically, yes, Democrats have less seats, but have you heard who's in those seats? In this freshman class alone, and I'm gonna stop for cheers for each one of these because they're remarkable. We have our first trans member of Congress.
We have an engineer from an immigrant community in the San Fernando Valley. We have the first Iranian-American Democrat in Congress. We have the youngest member ever elected to the house from New Jersey. That's not a thing.
How did you go from the reasonably impressive first Iranian Democrat to Odyssey to the, I think, somewhat reaching for youngest person ever from New Jersey? And then, by the way, to the audience, if you think that that framing is not that interesting, wait till you hear that this record-breaking young phenom from New Jersey? It's 38 years old!
38 years. Oh, yeah. How? Come on. How far are we going with this? Oh, in Illinois, we elected a ginger. Oh, hey. Yeah, yeah. We elected the first representative from Washington state who looks like he has a terrible secret. He ran on loneliness.
Wow, this is gonna be the most diverse group of Congress people to ever get all their legislation blocked. Someone's firing! But you know what? No, it's fine. People, but you know what? Those are just lonely house Democrats. How will the head of their party, the outgoing president, man the ramparts during this challenging and fraught, peaceful transition to fascism.
President Biden is in Brazil where he became the first American head of state to visit the Amazon rainforest. He went there to highlight the dangers of climate change and the need to turn away from fossil fuels. What the f***? No way that desk was there! No way! Not a chance!
in the middle of all this, he disappeared to the rainforest, starring in what appears to be like four Pixar movies in one mixed together. Clearly, up is one of them. And in Kanto, I'm gonna say there's a little Moana, maybe Wally. Had a powerful anti-consumer's message. Well, hopefully, listen, Wally's down there. Hopefully he has some inspiring words for us. Mr. President.
history is literally watching us now. So let's preserve the secret place for our time and forever for the benefit of all humanity. Thank you very, very much. What are you doing? Where are you going?
Literally, just walking away like that. Mr. President, I'm sorry. The tribe has spoken. Extinguish your torch. What does that happen? You know, maybe this is how we should do the transfer of power. The winner moves into the White House and the incumbent just wanders off into the jungle. So that his nutrients may be returned to the soil.
But of course, as the Democrats struggle, Donald Trump headed to Madison Square Garden with his grab him by the pussy posse to do his favorite thing. Watch people submit. Oh, Trump likes submission in the octagon. He likes it out of the octagon. He likes submission from his enemies and even from his new friends. And by the way, it doesn't take much of a transgression to warrant a bended knee for Trump. For instance, last week, Trump's newly minted health and human services nominee hit Trump with a bit of a light-hearted jab about his diet.
The stuff that he eats is really like bad. It's not campaign food is always bad. The food that goes onto that airplane is like just poison. Isn't it? A little friendly swipe, boop. A little bit of ribbing, gentle ribbing, boop. And he will pay for his insurance.
President Trump, Elon Musk, Don Jr., Arcade Jr., and Speaker Mike Johnson eating McDonald's on Trump's private plane. Yeah! Hey, what's up? Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey
And by the way, when you're done eating the whole thing, Grimace is gonna come in here and f***ing yes. Yeah, that's right. Grimace. Hey, you love it. Eat the whole thing. Grimace is gonna f***ing mess while we're doing it. You gotta make eye contact with him all the time. We're gonna film it. I was just gonna keep going with the promise, right?
By the way, I know we're focused on the humiliation of RFK Jr. But look at poor Mike Johnson there. Poor Mike Johnson right there. Oh, he didn't even get a seat at the cool kid's table. And the sad part? This whole thing was Mike Johnson's bachelor party.
Meanwhile, Joe and Mika Brzezinski Scarborough, who famously warned of the growing threat of Trump's fascism, also had an interesting announcement to make. Last Thursday, we expressed our own concerns on this broadcast and even said we would appreciate the opportunity to speak with the president elect himself.
On Friday, we were given the opportunity to do just that. Joe and I went to Mar-a-Lago to meet personally with President-elect Trump. And for those asking why we would go speak to the President-elect during such fraught times, especially between us, I guess I would ask back, why wouldn't we? Because you said he was Hitler.
By the way, oh, okay. Tap out, tap out. But look, we don't know what the visit was. We don't know what the tone of the visit was. We talked about a lot of issues, including abortion, mass deportation, threats of political retribution against political opponents, and media outlets. Oh, I bet you really laid down the gauntlet, Joe. I bet you walked in there and just let him have it, didn't you, Joey?
I'm gonna do a one act play called Joe and Mika go to Marlago. Mr. President, y'all rhetoric is outrageous. I cannot in good conscience. Ooh, are those macaroons? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The pink one is raspberry.
We've learned nothing! Even those putting up resistance to Trump's agenda don't seem to understand who they're dealing with. Senator Elizabeth Warren accusing President-elect Donald Trump's transition team of breaking the law, as there are reports at Mr. Deadline to finally required ethics pledge. Here you hear you! Hitler missed the reporting deadline! The war is over!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Republicans are playing chess, and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because they glued their balls to their thigh.
That is what is happening. The election that we just had was a repudiation of the status quo, an overly regulated system that is no longer responsive or delivering for the needs of the people or their beloved beheaded squirrels. Oh, RIP peanut.
Government is theoretically a constitutional system of checks and balances between equally powerful branches. But what government actually is is an overly complicated Byzantine bureaucratic maze of rules, loopholes to those rules, and norms.
Complex enough that A, if you want to find a rule that keeps you from doing something, you'll find it. And B, if you actually want to do something, you can find a loophole to get around said rule. And then the norms are just how often you've had to pull any of this shit. For example, Trump's, let's be generous, provocative, and unorthodox cabinet picks. I don't think Hulk Hogan's been nominated yet.
I think he's going to be the secretary of... Take your vitamins! Democrats are positive that the vaunted constitutional rules of the Senate shall be the guardrail to this madness. Certainly we can fight back. The president nominates. The Senate confirms. We're a check-in balance. We're there to be a guardrail. The Senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent on this nomination.
Oh shit, you want Matt Gaetz, Mr. President, prepare to be advice and consented beyond? There is no way for the Constitution to allow you to get past it.
The Constitution does give the president power to adjourn the House and Senate on extraordinary occasions. To unilaterally install his most controversial nominees and bypass the Senate confirmation process entirely. That is our government in a nutshell. The rules say we can stop it. The loophole says, **** that. And so what are you left with? The last refuge of losers, the norms.
I don't think that's appropriate, and I don't think that's what the founder's intended. That is not the custom. Yeah, you can do it, and it's legal by whatever guy. We're gonna think you're a dick.
Republicans exploit the loopholes. Democrats complain about the norms over and over and over, and it has ghastly consequences. Remember when President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to give that a vote, saying, well, it's only one full year before the election. It's too close.
Now, you can make a case that Obama could violate the norm, say the Senate failed their advice and consent, and appoint them anyway, and see whatever the **** happens. Fight. But they just went, well, we never heard of that rule, but, uh, okay.
smash cut two months before a presidential election. Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court after the completely unforeseeable death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And as you can imagine, the Democrats went right to the nearby kinkos. Behind me is the McConnell rule. On February 13th, 2016, when Justice Scalia passed away, Senator McConnell said, and I quote, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.
And so Amy Coney Barrett was forced to head back to her homestead. Never to be heard from a, oh, they didn't give a ****. Oh, all right, I forgot. They didn't give a ****. Look.
Let this show be the utterly ineffective hypocrisy finders. I can tell you from experience, it does nothing. You guys be the loophole guys that figure out how to get shit done because they don't give a fuck about your norms. They will exploit any loophole, even if they have to go through clearly closed windows to do it. You would think after Trump's presidency, Democrats would have learned.
But they doubled down. When Biden tried to get immigration reform into the Inflation Reduction Act and the Senate, parliamentarian told him he couldn't. Did he respond to the rule with the loophole? Or did he? That's for the parliamentarian to decide. Not for Joe Biden to decide. No! You take the parliamentarian and you put them in a locker and then you grimace in and have them
That's what you do! Do you guys get what I'm saying? Perhaps a demonstration is an order.
To get anything done, the Democrats feel like they must thread the needle. To make sure, oh, we have to make sure each norm follows the overly complex bureaucratic process that we created ourselves. Oh, the part of mentoring, oh, I can't do it because the norm says, oh, I can't get anything done. Meanwhile, the Republicans come in and all they have to do is finger bang a donut. That's all they have to do.
Oh, how are we gonna get Matt Gaetz in if the advice and consent? Oh, there it is, right there. Boom, boom. There he's in there. There he's in. Ah, look at he's in. Do I have to sleep with this now?
I've made you all uncomfortable. Now Trump has the House, Senate, presidency, and judiciary. So it's going to get harder, not easier. Democrats are going to have to forcefully play the loopholes. But the good news is, you're well set up for it with the youngest congressional representative ever from New Jersey, 38-year-old Lamonic and MacGyver, unless
Wait, I've got a loophole. What if Joe Biden got his vice president to not certify... No, no! President Biden, wait! Listen! Listen to the plan! Joe! We'll be right back with Roy to share it. Don't go away.
John Stewart here, unbelievably exciting news. My new podcast, The Weekly Show. We're going to be talking about the election, economics, ingredients to bread ratio on sandwiches. Listen to The Weekly Show with John Stewart, wherever you get your podcasts.
is an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow, co-founder of the Liberal Patriots, sub-stack and co-author of Where Of All The Democrats Gone. Please welcome the program, Rui Tashira.
Hey, my pleasure. Your book is, where of all, I don't even know what, I'm holding it up to you, I'll just hold it up over here. Where have all the Democrats gone? This was kind of an expose, I think, on your recipe for how Democrats lost their coalition. Written when? We put it out last year, basically, exactly a year from... Roy, let me ask you a question.
Now, did you send it to any of the Democrats? Not really, no. We hope they'd pick up on it, I guess, didn't happen, you know? People aren't really readers anymore. Is there an audiobook? There is an audiobook. Maybe we should have sent that to them. Or maybe like a five-slide PowerPoint deck.
Now you're learning the game. First of all, it is a really interesting historical breakdown context of sort of how the Democrats lost their more populist economic
instincts and can you can you go through it sort of the Clintons probably began it in a way but but even as far back as Jimmy Carter. Sure yeah yeah. I mean Jimmy Carter had a sort of deregulatory sort of anti populist approach toward economics he took on a lot of things that eventually found their way into the Reagan approach in terms of deregulation and so on and of course with Bill Clinton we have you know deregulation of finance we have NAFTA
eventually after Clinton leaves, but sort of he was pushing it along. We have the accession of China, the WTO, and you have the so-called China shock, which really destroys millions of manufacturing jobs. So over time, you saw a lot of working-class people developing a sense, particularly in the areas of the country that were left behind, that were dependent on industrial growth on
Resource extraction. I mean they were they felt like Democrats didn't have their backs anymore They felt Democrats were you know, this was a new world We all gonna get educated, you know We were gonna have a lot of economic growth because we're moving into the new information economy right and forget that old Manufacturing stuff and there wasn't seemingly much difference other than maybe tax cuts and tax hikes between neoliberal Democrats and
standard Republican free trade policy. Yeah, yeah, no, that was definitely true. I mean, I was very noticeable at the time and there's some Democrats who pushed back against it, but they definitely lost the debate and the Democrats became, you know, there's sort of this third way thing in the 90s with Clinton and Blair and people like that and sort of
They basically put their chips down and we have to get government off people's backs. We have to deregulate. We have to just let a rip, right, with global trade. And eventually, it will all trickle down to the masses of honest workers and peasants of America. It's coming, people. It's going to trickle down a few more decades.
So then it's sort of, you get the rise of kind of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren. There is this, and throughout it, you know, Paul Wells, a progressive wing that wanted a more populist approach, but they could never win the day. And you make the case, it's because the money that was coming into the Democratic Party was coming now from business.
and not from labor. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean, the influence of labor on the Democratic Party just declined so much in the 80s and 90s, of course, through our current day. I mean, it used to be labor was the backbone of the Democratic Party. That's what they relied upon for troops, for money to some extent. And that really just becomes completely replaced in the 80s and 90s. And even the culture of the Democratic Party changes because
There used to be much more contact between the Democrats and the labor movement. There's a really close working relationship between them over time. The labor movement gets pushed out because it's also declining at the time. What do you think came first? The decline of the labor movement, the decline of people participating in the labor movement, or the Democrats moving away from that as a source of
Well, I think they were sort of an interactive, negative feedback a little less at work. Right, right. And fewer people, unions. Kind of a death spiral if you want to be melodramatic about it. Really, I do want to be melodramatic about it. OK, well, you know. I don't know if you watched the first act, but I punched my hand through a doughnut hole. Let's face it. I mean, that last election, things could have gone better.
Now, I feel like resonated with the audience and has resonated with them in a while. My idea of what happened with the Democratic Party is, it was a rejection of a status quo. A feeling that, not just in the working class movement, but in many movements, that democracy is by nature analog.
we are living in a digital world where, you know, terminally online, the outrage and the anger and the confusion is much elevated, and the distance between those two points becomes untenable, especially if the Democrats insist on, well, we have to keep the, I'd love to get you the help you need, but the parliamentarian has really been up my ass like all night. I feel like that's a real problem for them.
Yeah, I mean the sense that the Democratic Party isn't responsive to the needs of sort of ordinary the common man and woman the working class and they're too caught up in other issues or they're too worried about you know sort of government regulations and parliamentary and stuff and they're not like laser focused on getting stuff done and you know even in places like New York City where you have you know very Democratic governance this is a sense that
They aren't pulling out all the stops to make sure everyone gets good services and everything runs well. And, you know, effective government is what people want. It's a triage system, in some respects. There's two things. You have to respond to what seems to be the immediate needs and then lay the groundwork for the future. I still think they did an effective job, laying the groundwork for the future. The first part is what? That's exactly right. Infrastructure built, those are great things. But then you deal work because it triaged the urgency. That's right.
That's right. It seems like that a problem. By the way, I don't think the Republicans do that either. No. You know, in terms of that. I'll say, I mean, look at these great cabinet picks that Trump has. They're ready. They're 10 rats in and ready. You know? To help the people. Yeah. I was warned about you. Ruits you share as a dry son of a bitch. Yeah, all right. I'll read out. No, dead on right. I almost think
And this is a broader conversation, but if you look at European countries, their satisfaction with government is higher, because it feels like they think the money they pay into government returns in services they actually use. If you break down people's tax bill, the first probably five tranches of it
are nothing that you use, you know, 75, 80% of it is its military, Medicare, Social Security. It's stuff you'll use when you're 65 or 70, but you don't use now. How do we get them more responsive to what really is happening in people's lives?
well you know if i if i knew that i would uh... be running the democratic party and they'd be running the table but uh... i first of all you mean that you can't hit the target unless you're aiming at it contrary to this and pre-cept you actually have to focus relentlessly on delivering for people in their daily lives and figuring out a way to do it okay you know they've got x percent of the budget this
allocated these other things. But how can we take what degrees of freedom we have and use them to help ordinary people so they feel it? Let's not just pass a bunch of legislation that kind of sounds good and may pay off in the long run, but people don't really feel in their day-to-day lives. And I think they have a sense that they work hard, they pay money into the system, and then that money is, whether this is hyperbolic or not, I think it is, goes to people who don't deserve it.
It goes to migrants. It goes to trans people. It goes to this. And they don't deserve it. I deserve it. Right. Well, the migrants thing became such a problem, obviously, because of the extent to which immigration spiked. And then you had people turning up in overburdened urban areas. And you know, you even had a lot of black voters, for example, in Chicago saying, why should I vote for Kamala Harris? I mean, they're giving away all this stuff.
to people who just came in from out of the country that aren't even legal. But even me. Even that tells you, though, they had an opportunity to do something three years about it. They said they couldn't. And that was baloney. But I can't do it. I'm going to wait for it. First of all, that's the type of language that I absolutely... Wait a minute, I saw your monologue. I don't know what happened there.
It will get believed. OK. But it is the kind of thing, like, we can't overturn norms and things. And you're like, well, how did you get to Kamala Harris as the nominee?
That wasn't the norm. You overturned her. And by the way, when you did, there was an explosion of enthusiasm and excitement because they suddenly felt like, oh, they're recognizing a reality that I also see. And now we have a chance. And now we have a chance. Why isn't that more a part of the governance?
Well, I think one, I mean, for example, look at the immigration issue. Yes, there were some tenuous excuses why they couldn't move on and earlier, but why didn't they move on and earlier? It was a lot because the Democratic coalition is so responsive, Biden was responsive to the various elements of the coalition. He didn't want them to do anything. There were a lot of advocacy groups.
a lot of parts of the Democratic Party that really thought things were fine. This is like not really a problem. It's all made up. It's all in Fox News. And Biden didn't want to cross. I mean, and this is a part of the problem with the Democratic coalition today. There's too many parts of the coalition have veto power on doing effective things. You get into something interesting with that. And it's something that I, you know, rightfully, I think have a blind spot on.
And that is this idea of Woke and DEI, and that the Democrats are too woke and too DEI, and that's why they lost. And it's hard for me to wrap my head around that. Well, it's not the only reason, but it was a contributing factor. Right. And if you look at, like, there's been some data collected after the election by the blueprint strategy group that saw the top three reasons. I love their listicles.
Well, in this listicle, the first reason was inflation. The second reason was too much illegal immigration. And the third reason was Democrats being too concerned about cultural issues and not the welfare of the middle class. And there's similar data from other places. Here's where you can help me with this. But the idea of DEI, and maybe I'm just working off of the wrong definition of woke, which is
And maybe that's the thing that I don't understand. But when they say, all this DEI, it feels like you're talking about that one seminar you have to sit in. That's like an hour. I know it's a little bit more to it than that. It gets eye-rolling, but it's a fucking hour. Right. Well, there's more to it than that. I think people have the perception that it's being used as a way of allocating things that's different from merit, and that's a real problem. I'm just saying, it doesn't seem to work that well, people don't like it, including non-white working class people. Right.
Yeah, I mean, there's a very reasonable argument that we need to lift up people who've been left behind by various heritages of vexed heritages of our country. I don't even know why that's controversial. That's not controversial. People are fine with helping out people who are disadvantaged. I mean, those people are good with that.
I mean, they don't think necessary. Here's where I'm lost. Right. Okay. Because you just said people don't like that. So I guess is it because of my definition. You don't like DEI or reparations or whatever. I mean, whatever kind of a basket of things that sound to them, like they're going to give people stuff that they didn't, you know, sort of earn. What is it we're doing? Tariffs are there to repair the damage. Yes.
i mean i don't know if you can't work terror economic policy that supposed to make it you know sort of more things made in america is supposed to help manufacturing workers yes so on okay so well i mean people look at class different from race what can i tell you it's just a but it's all mixed together as well as it's all mixed together so why are you yelling at me
Because you seem to be determined to, I don't know, just, what's your point? Is like race is more important than class? No, what's your point? No, my point is it seems that government's job is to look at the systems that we use in this country to create wealth in progress. Sure.
and then to look at the natural areas where those systems create collateral damage and repair as best they can the collateral damage of those systems and I don't understand why we've singled out DEI as the devil and helping
manufacturing as smart and good. Like, isn't it all the same thing? The point about DI is it's not particularly effective in lifting up. But that's a different argument, is it not? No, it's not a different argument. Basically, what I'm saying is that what, if you want to actually help people, I will arrest you. I will arrest you, right now.
You want universal policies that disproportionately lift up, say, black and Latino poor people because they're more heavily concentrated among people who are committed. And that is what is popular. But they were extensively disadvantaged, so why wouldn't we try to
repair that but my point of view that picks winners and losers all the time we have subsidies for farming areas and those are controversial because they say the policies that we have in place have hurt farmers so let's get some subsidies in there to ameliorate the damage that is a particular if you want to you want to help out
people who live in, say, poor black areas or poor Latino areas, you can't just channel that money to people who are Latino and black because that's unconstitutional and is extremely unpopular. If you want to lift them up, have universal programs that actually help people to live in those disadvantages.
Everybody's for that. Everybody's for that. That's not DEI. DEI is really different. I think I... No, they're completely different. I think I disagree with you that everybody's for it, because I think they view that as woke. That what I just described, they would view as woke. And that is of a different... It works right. I get the sense that in this country, people look at entrenched poverty in the cities and think that it is a product of culture.
and vice, and they look at entrenched poverty in whiter areas and think that they are victims of economic policies that they are not in control of. I do think in this country it's viewed differently. I just think it, you know, here's what you didn't get during the crack crisis.
deaths of despair, these poor people. But in the federal correctness, rightfully so, you do. And I think some of that has to do with the populations. And so that's my point is, why is DEI, I feel like then it's a failure to describe what we're trying to do. Okay, well DEI isn't the name for what you want them. It's something else. Because DEI is the
we only think it will be allowed. The left behind black and Latino. But the real things that would help in trench poverty in those cities aren't done in favor of, OK, we're not actually going to do that. But we will let you have an hour every three months where you get to tell us. I agree with that. I agree with that. I think DI is a very poor substitute for those kinds of programs. Could you just look into that camera and say that?
Do you think it is something that can be fixed? Is it perception or is it reality? It is a matter of the kinds of programs that will have to be promulgated on a universal basis, which have a disproportionate effect on black and Latino working class and poor people.
That's how you do it. And it's possible to build support for those I really believe. Right. Don't call it DEI. Don't call it reparations. Don't call it anything like that because those are really unpopular. Call it, you're just trying to help people who are disadvantaged and there may be complex historical reasons for it. And there's black people and white people, Latino people, all need that kind of help. That is actually pretty popular. Why do you think the Republicans don't have to play by those same rules? Like,
If you're a pro-Palestine, they're very happy going. You're a terrorist sympathizer. If you want certain economics, you're a Marxist and a communist. They name call constantly. They do the same thing that you're saying. They do. They do. So why... Well, they don't seem to ever have like... If they really wanted to seriously dominate the country in a way that's different than taking advantage of the fact people hated the Biden-Harris administration, they would have to like push back on stuff like that.
They would have to move to the center themselves. That's the whole thing about the political era we're in. We're in an era where both Democrats and Republicans seem incapable, maybe even not interested in forming a dominant majority coalition and sort of sanding off their rough edges, correcting the things they need to be corrected, and really capturing the center of American politics in a decisive way. And absolutely the Republicans have the same problems.
They say and do a lot of stupid stuff that puts a ceiling on their support. Generally, the biggest movements in America that have done what you're saying weren't centrist. The New Deal and FDR was considered far left. Reagan and the Reagan Revolution was considered far right. And it seems like the centrist, Romney, McCain, those guys got their asses kicked. So I'm not sure. Well, the New Deal was actually quite centrist. The New Deal was centrist. Yeah, I mean, for the Senate. It was basically Norman Thomas in socialism.
No, no, it was basically it was the institution of Keynesian economics in the country. And it was actually wildly popular at the time. I mean, people revered FDR. They stood up for the common man and woman. Well, OK, but they still liked it. But it wasn't the center. No, it wasn't the center. I'm not defining the center as being a particular ideology. I'm defining it as, what do people in the center of the distribution want? What do they care about? What are their concerns? You mean like, oh, you're talking about statistical. Yeah, that's my thing.
Guilty as charged. I didn't know statisticians were such argumentative sons and bitches. Are you pretty argumentative of yourself, anyway? Can I tell you something? Yeah. Super argumentative. Like, I actually don't like that about myself. I'm very contrarian, too. Yeah. Like, and can get a little sanctimals. Yeah, I don't know what I'm going to do about that. Yeah. I have a feeling probably a little later in life. It's not going to get any better. Ask me on this. No, I'm going to be one of those dudes where people are just like, don't
Right, right. You guys can check out Rui's work, liberalpatreon.com. Rui to share it. We'll be right back after that.
John Stewart here. Unbelievably exciting here. My new podcast, The Weekly Show. We're going to be talking about the election, economics, ingredients to bread ratio on sandwiches. Listen to The Weekly Show with John Stewart, wherever you get your podcasts. What's crazy?
They cleaned my glasses right before the show. I already had them all f***ing up. Never put donuts on your glasses. That is our show for tonight. Before we go, we're going to check in with your host for the rest of the week. Desi Lydic, Desi! Desi, it's so nice to see you. What's coming up this week? Well, John, we'll be talking about my weekend trip to Mar-a-Lago, where I went to reopen the conversation with President-elect Trump.
reopen the cup. Does he, didn't you spend the last year calling him a f***ing face? Let's not know why I remember it. No, but I wanted to go down there for unity. I want to be unified with all the people who he won't be getting revenge on. We had a great conversation about mass deportation, and the bottom line is, I can tell you now that I'm gonna be okay.
What about all the people being mass deported? Oh, yes. I can tell them, too, that, uh, I'm going to be OK. Congratulations, Desi. Desi, why did it go this way? Here it is. Your moment is end. You can see what's next. Then you can see him embracing Joe Rogan. Let's see him. They're going to get together in a second. Here it comes. Wait for it. He's walking in. Now he's going to say hello. There's Dana.
Oh, not quite. I think we'll get the Joe Rogan picture in just a moment. Hang on, hang on. That's not quite. Explore more shows from The Daily Show podcast universe by searching The Daily Show. Wherever you get your podcasts. Watch The Daily Show week nights at 11, 10 central on Comedy Central and stream full episodes anytime on Fairmount Plus.
Hey everybody, John Stewart here. I am here to tell you about my new podcast, The Weekly Show, coming out every Thursday. We're gonna be talking about the election, earnings calls. What are they talking about on these earnings calls? We're gonna be talking about ingredient to bread ratio on sandwiches. I know you have a lot of options as far as podcasts go, but how many of them come out on Thursday? Listen to The Weekly Show with John Stewart, wherever you get your podcasts.
