Wanted: Democratic Leadership with DNC Chair Ken Martin

Hey everybody, it is Wednesday, September 24th. We're taping the weekly show podcast. My name is John Stewart. We're doing this in the morning and I have to say that now because the cadence, the speed, the circadian rhythm by which news occurs. Jimmy Kimmel came back on television last night, delivered I thought, just a fantastic heartfelt but still funny and interesting and just met the moment that he was given in such a beautiful way. And I was so proud to be a practitioner in that same business. And who knows? By today, he could have been taken off the air again. We don't really know where this goes. And I think ultimately his point about, this isn't about the dopey shows that we do and the things like that. It's about a principle of a government that has basically operated like a monarchy. And Trump has said it even explicitly, which is I don't do business with people I don't like as though government is purely a business. We are not his business partners. We are not his associates. We are the citizens of a sovereign nation and a constitutional republic that should have representation, whether he like he or no like he. So it's just been. I don't even feel bad about it because as shitty as he is to all of us, he just walks into the U.N. and goes, I'm right about everything and you live in hellholes. The escalator which has been so pivotal in the rise. The escalator is his vehicle. It is his triumphant chariot as he comes down from what appeared to be a Barnes and Noble down towards what was the food court where he delivered his first message in 2016. But to have that chariot fail him at the U.N. and to have to go back to use it at its most primitive form, which is of course the stare. The stare is the way that it had to go and to blame the U.N. for subterfuge. And meanwhile, they're like, actually, I think you had like a camera due to tripped up one of the things and that it was a safety alarm and it tripped it up. And that's why it stopped. But either way, why get in the way of a perfectly good conspiracy about the United Nations wanting to force a canceled man to scale the heights of Mount escalator. Find his way into the general assembly. But we're not talking about today. Today is a whole different animal. Today, we're going to be discussing things about the Democratic party, which you may or may not know still exists. I believe on paper. I don't know if it exists in the larger cultural sense, relevance wise, but it is on paper. I believe still there. And we're going to bring on our guest. He is the chairman of said Democratic Party National Committee, etc. So let's get to our guest now and we'll move this thing forward. All right, so we are joined right now by our guest, the head. The chairman is a chairman. Can do they call it the chair? I like to call it chair, but whatever the hell you want to call me, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Ken Martin. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Oh, thanks for having me, John. It's crazy time. It's a crazy time. The first thing I want to do again, and this may seem a bit remedial, is just to get a sense of what is your job? What is under the purview of the chairman of the Democratic National Committee? Well, I appreciate you asking that because there's a lot of ideas what my job should be, but let me tell you what it really is. At the core, the job of any political party chair of either party at any level, whether it's a national party, state party, local party, is to build infrastructure, to actually help us win elections up and down the ballot, right? And that is very encompassing, of course, what does infrastructure mean? It means that we are, of course, making sure that we're engaging volunteers in the work of talking to voters to developing our platform and our message, to make sure that we're out there recruiting candidates. We're raising the resources to put organization in place to actually help ID persuade, mobilize voters to actually show up on election day and win elections. It's as simple as that, right? It's much more complicated in terms of the actual pieces of it, but at the core, I think there's a lot of things people think the Democratic Party is, that we control our elected officials, our candidates, that we control what happens in the U.S. Congress or in state legislatures. No, the party's role is really simply what are we doing to actually help us win? Right. But certainly you're not, I mean, I wouldn't think agnostic on policy, I think, probably determining, you know, it's, you are the architects and builders, to some extent, and I would imagine right now, maybe even with an elevated role because of the lack of an apparent leader. Yeah, of course. Well, look, I mean, I would say this, you know, obviously we're out of power and we have, that might be the nicest way I think I've ever heard that put. Well, yeah, yeah, you know, the Republicans are sort of at an apex of their political power. Yes. But I will say this that the role right now for me and then frankly, you know, our leaders throughout the country and we have many different leaders is to make sure that we're presenting a coherent and concise message that connects with voters again. And we have a role to play in that for sure, but it's not our role alone. We're not the sole deciders on what our message is, what our platform is, and what we're going to be talking about. But we do work with all of our partners in that conversation, you know, from our governors years. Yeah, I was going to say so, you know, as you're putting that together because, you know, one of the things I think you find right now is, you know, you talk about a coherent message and that's a great phrase that I have not heard Democrats utter and quite some time you sort of have this, you know, there's the Bernie wing that's got a more populist drive and that's been very active for a couple of decades. You've got kind of this new maybe Slotkin. Let's just talk normal, you know, let's say Michigan der as much as we possibly can so that people go, is that really what they call themselves? You know, you've got sort of the competent governor archetype where they roll up the sleeves and they curse more and say, we're going to get shit done. Right. How does that come together logistically? You know, and then you've also got maybe on the other side, you've got kind of the Ezra Klein abundance messaging. But if you think about it in Congress, Chuck Schumer is the leader, Hakeem Jeffries is the leader in the House of Representatives. I don't know any role that they have in the messaging. They seem almost vestigial at this point. Let me just say that. I think what you point to is, is one of the challenges in the Democratic Party, for sure, is we're a big tent, right? You know, we're not that big. If you were a big tent, we wouldn't be in this position. What would we know? Well, let me say this, in terms of our representation in this party, in terms of elected officials, we have conservative Democrats, we have centrist Democrats, we have progressives like me, and then we have the leftists, right? This sort of new emerging wing of our party. And I've always believed that you win elections through addition, not subtraction. You win by growing your coalition and bringing new voices into the party. What that means, of course, is sometimes that means it's messy. There's debate, there's dissent, there's difference of opinion. That's a good thing for our party, right? But what it also sometimes means is you have some inconsistency in the message itself in terms of breaking through. And I will say part of the challenge for a Democratic Party chair again is how do we get all of the various wings of our party and all of these various ideas into the same boat, rowing in the same direction towards the same goal? And part of that is by creating a frame, a message frame that whether you're a leftist Democrat or a conservative Democrat, you can use, right? And so that when we talk about messaging, we have to also recognize, I'll use Minnesota as an example. I'm going to stop you for a second. Yeah, please. Because you're, you're, you will take the role of instructor laying out the steps by which to create a functioning party. And I believe we'll take the role of doubting Thomas. Please. Perhaps there's plenty of those out there these days. So I understood what you are talking about and the way that you are talking about it strikes my ear as as a kind of consultant driven as opposed to what I'm hearing from you is we have to have a big tent and draw different ideas and create a unified. And what it says to me is I didn't hear once like, what do you, everybody believe in? What's the principle? What's the drive? I'm happy to get into what I think the message should be and let me say what I think it should be. Thank you. It's very clear and no more about boats, no more about rowing, no more, I do think it's important to talk about the tactical challenges for the Democratic Party, which is what you were saying, right? We have all of these different ideas. How do you actually come up with a message? I think the message is very clear, right, John? We got away from this in 92 James Carville said this, that it's a economy is stupid, right? And the reality is is if you got a hundred people in the room right now, a hundred Democrats and ask them what the Democratic Party stood for, you'd get 150 different answers. And so I think it's very simple. It's no matter where you're from, no matter where you live, no matter who you love or who you are, you should have an opportunity in this country to get ahead, not just get by. You should have an opportunity to achieve the American dream, to climb the economic ladder and achieve success for your family, right? That at the core of it is fairly simple, right? That is who the Democratic Party has been for years, in my opinion, but we've gotten away from that, right? And I would say, how have you gotten away from it? Because one of the things, John, I think what we do is we tend to message to smaller and smaller parts of our coalition. Some people call it identity politics. I actually think it's broader than that. It's also geographic. We say one thing to a rural community, we come into a suburban community and say something different. We come into an urban core and say something. The needs of a rural community are different from an urban community. Sure, but there should be some core sort of thread that connects all of them, right? And I'll use Minnesota as an example, John. What connects a corn farmer, like my father-in-law, right, in southern Minnesota, with an iron ranger up on the iron ranger with? Can I'm not going to know the answer to this? Well, of course you are, because I don't know what connects a corn farmer to an iron. I don't even know what an iron ranger is. Well, let me tell you what it is. It's someone who's mining up on the iron ranger, Minnesota. The largest deposit of iron ore in the country is in northern Minnesota. By the way, with a refugee, a new refugee in the Twin Cities, what is the thing that connects all of them? Well, it's pretty simple. They are very disparate groups, for sure. But what connects them is economics. Every one of them has a job. Everyone's working their asses off. All three of those groups are falling behind, feeling left behind, forgotten, dispossessed, and they feel like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party could give a shit about their lives. These are folks that are hard working. Most people, by the way, when we talk about the working class in this country, which is about 70% of Americans that do not have a college degree, these are black, brown, and white people who are bust in their ass who are working harder than ever have before, and they feel like no one cares that they're unseen and they're forgotten. So I say this because that has to be the core message, an economic message that gives them a sense that we're fighting for them and their families. But that's, I mean, isn't that Bernie Sanders? Isn't that what he's been saying for? I think it's Bernie Sanders. I think it's, you know, a whole host of folks from Tim Walls, to Josh Shapiro, to West more to, you know, I guess my point is when you say something that broadly true, it almost becomes meaningless. It becomes this idea of the difficulty I have connecting to that is just the very basicness of it, which is we've got to get back to those kitchen table issues. And again, it's a way of political speak that almost renders it, devoid of any connection and meaning because it feels so platitudinous. Yeah. I don't disagree with you. And I just said this last night, John, which is, to some folks I was visiting with, that's the frame for our message. And then underneath of that, what we have to do is actually start presenting the specific policy agenda, and one of the things that I think about a lot in '94, I worked on a congressional race. And as you remember, John, what was remarkable about '94 was the America? Right. And what was, that's right. And what was also remarkable in that year is they flipped a 40 year house majority. Neither party, Republicans or Democrats have had long term majorities since then. But, but the important piece is what you just reflected on. All right, guys, these days, every headline feels like it's been engineered to make you either furious, terrified, or both. It is, it's honestly maddening. Like you can't even, you can't watch it. You can't read it. You can't deal with it. Well, ground news is here to help you fight back against the tyranny of reptilian emotion that these other news organizations are trying to hit you with. Just a response to this fear and anger-based media, they don't, they don't tell you how to think or feel. They aggregate and organize information just to help readers make their own decisions. Ground news provides users reports that easily compare headlines or reports that give us summarized breakdown of the specific differences in reporting across all the spectrums. It's a great resource. Go to groundnews.com/stuart and subscribe for 40% off the unlimited access vantage subscription, brings the price down to about $5 a month. Groundnews.com/stuart or scan the QR code on the screen. Well, so, so, so let's go back. One of the reasons that people think the Democratic Party abandoned the working class was the kind of, I guess, what they would call, and I hate to use these terminologies, but neoliberalism or the idea of globalization and NAFTA and sending jobs overseas and inviting China into the WTO, all these things that were kind of part of, you would think, the Clinton era movement of neoliberal economics, a kind of buying into maybe not explicitly, but supply side economics, right? I think you're right. From what I've seen, the people that are building this new Democratic Party, and for those of you, this is a podcast, I'm making the air quality thing, I'm doing the new Democratic Party, they seem to be of a piece of that same cadre of, in other words, the leadership that has been tasked with creating this new Democratic Party, which understands the pain of it's the economy stupid, and feels your pain is made up of the same DNA in atomic structure. I think that's unfair. I mean, look. Sure. That's what I'm here for. There are some, John, for sure, that represent that sort of old way of thinking. I'm the first card care union member to be elected DNC chair. I come out of the building trades. My mom was 15 years old when she had me, she raised four kids by herself, and I say that to tell you that I am the working class. At the end of the day, when I look at, and I agree with your assessment of where our party started to go wrong in the 90s with these trade deals, right? As a union member, I will tell you that at the core, we've seen union membership and union households declining, and of course, as a result, we've seen the middle class shrinking and declining, right? The wealth inequality in this country is greater than it's ever been, and so we have to get back to those roots. And by that, I do not mean through a neoliberal lens as some in our party approach these policy conversations. But let me say this. We need, back to this idea of a frame. We need a frame that's large enough to bring in the leftist Democrats, progressive Democrats, the centrist, and the conservative Democrats, because I think this is important. I don't subscribe to the idea that there's just one way to be a Democrat. It belies the point, which is for us to win, you can't run the same type of candidate everywhere. You just can't. I'll use Minnesota as an example. The fifth congressional district, which is Minneapolis, Ilhan Omar represents that district. She's a leftist, right? Right next to her, literally the next district over is a third district, which was represented by Dean Phillips, who is a business centrist. And then right next to him, four years was a guy named Colin Peterson, who was a House egg committee chair, a very conservative blue dog Democrat, all three of them Democrats, all three of them important for us for the reasons that we're trying to get into power. You can't get shit done. You can't get shit done for people, John, if you actually are in second place. You don't get brownie points for being in the minority. I understand that very, very clearly, but again, this all seems to be talking around the reality. So it's, we've got to find a way to appeal to Democrats of all different stripes so that we can get back into power and get shit done for people. But at the end of the day, what it feels like to me is that the Democrats are in the position of defending a status quo. quo, in terms of everything that the government does, that the people have decided is utterly broken and corrupt. I agree with you on that. I'm not doing that. And I'll tell you what, I think earlier this year as an example, John, we took the bait on this, right? So Doge comes along and they start making cuts in government, right? And their argument is very simple. Government sucks. It's not working for you. We're going to blow it up and we're going to make it more efficient. There's massive fraud and abuse. And what is our response? Don't cut government. Government's good. It's working for you. Well, guess what? Most working people I know, most families like my family, they don't believe that government's working for them. Hasn't worked for them for years. So suddenly the Democratic Party becomes the defender of the status quo. Well, guess what? The status quo is not working for working people. So I think we made we the collective we as a Democratic Party made a mistake. Yeah, we believe in government, right? But we got to fix it. We got to reform it. We got to make it work for people. So tell me about that. So Doge comes out and that's happening. You've just jumped in at DNC at that point. So what is the discussion? Is the problem here that the Democrats only have a way to steer away from the crash, but they don't know what they're driving towards in this moment? Yes. Yes. I agree. Let me give you the example of, you know, because there is a thirst out there in the country, like I've never seen it. And you see the energy with a guy like mom Donnie in New York City. And you may not like everything that he's doing. But there's a guy who finally harnesses the type of energy and drive that Democrats have been talking about wanting to harness. And the first thing that happens is everybody runs in the other direction. Well, that's not true, but some people. A lot of people in the Democratic Party, I was a first person out of the gate to endorse him. And, you know, and I will tell you, John, that I think you're absolutely right on memo. But you've got Chuck Schumer and Hockey and Jerry's both New York, supposedly the head of the Senate and the head of congressional Democrats running in the other direction. You know, John, every morning, I say the serenity prayer, which is important to me. And I say that, let me tell you why, because there's things I can't control. You ask this question at the very beginning, which I appreciated you asking, what is the Democratic Party do? Because this is where people think that the chair of the party has control over their elected officials. As if somehow I could call Senator Schumer or leader Jeffries or any governor and tell them what they should do. It doesn't work that way. So I'll be very clear. That's not the only point. I think that's the point. The point I'm making about the serenity prayers, I can only control what I can control, which is myself. And from my perspective, I've always said, and I've been very clear on this. It's up to the Democratic primary voters to decide who our nominee is. And once they send us a nominee, we need to fight like hell for whoever they send us. And that's important. Again, for me, I've always, I was the first person after the 2016 election to put forward a super delegate reform. I authored that. I authored a neutrality pledge to keep party bosses out of putting their thumb on the scale for candidates, because I believe, as you do, right, again, that there are many different voices in this party. And we should not be pushing those voices out. We should be bringing them in. But back to your— Well, just to stay on that point for a minute, it is difficult, I'm sure, to make those calls even though I would imagine that is kind of—you may not have control over it, but it does seem like that would be the place to make your case, at least, or to advocate. But the second part is, even within the areas that are your purview, let's say the Democratic National Committee, David Hogg is a young vocal, may not like all it does, but he's pushed out. Randy Weingarten, the AFSC to me, Union Chiefs are pushed out. It feels like the Democrats, rather than, you know, the tent got big enough for Liz Cheney, but it doesn't seem big enough for more rebellious, difficult voices. Here's what I would say before I get into the David and Randy stuff. I started with Paul Wellstone in 1990. I represent, as Paul used to say, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. I am a progressive, and like David and Randy, I've been fighting in this movement for a long time to change this party. You know, when I started with Paul, I was a young radical, and like many, you know, I wanted to burn the party down. And one thing he said to me, which is stuck with me, John, is he said, look, no institution can solely change on the outside. Yes, we need to build a grassroots movement of people who are going to push our party to be better. The only way an institution will change is from the inside and get involved and make the party, the party that you want it to be. I've spent 35 years trying to do that. So, you know, look, I will tell you this. Let me talk about the David piece for a second, because I think it's important to get into this. I really like David, and I support what he's trying to do. Primaries are really important in our party. It's important in democracy, one, it holds elected officials accountable, two, it brings new ideas and perspectives into the conversation. And three, it's a pathway for new leaders. It's a pathway for young leadership. It's a pathway for, you know, people of color that could never run for office. It's a pathway for a whole group of folks that never would be given a shot, including my first boss, Paul Wellstone, right? So I say this truly because I support primaries. But what that beef was between us, and this is critical beef, you don't hear Minnesota and talk beef. Well, sure you do. We got a lot of beef farmers in Minnesota. We're not talking about. So, but truly, John, listen, in 2016, as I mentioned earlier, I saw the devastating results of party leadership, putting their thumb on the scale, and basically telling all of those young supporters of Bernie Sanders to go fuck themselves, right? And as a result, they left the party and they never came back. Whether perceived or real, what ended up happening is we pushed people out of the conversation. And I want to go back to what I said before. One of the reasons I was successful in Minnesota is we, because we built the type of coalition that brought everyone into the conversation. And so right after that election in '17, I was elected as a vice chair of the DNC to lead all of our state parties. And I pushed the existing officers in our party to put a neutrality pledge in place to say that party leadership cannot get involved in primaries. They have to stay out and let the primary voters make that decision. When I campaigned for this position, I said I wanted to codify that into our charter. And so the difference that both David and I supported each other's positions. He supported neutrality, I supported primaries, but there is no way to reconcile them. He couldn't be an officer, well, also then having his organization, he leads, be involved in primaries, which is why he decided to step down. No one pushed them out. Just the opposite. I want David to stay in. He's an amazing young leader who has a lot of great ideas and we need his voice and energy in the party. But how do you reconcile those two? Sure. You're saying that he had to go because if you are on the DNC, you have to abide by a neutrality pledge. And so if he is involved in an organization that is promoting primaries for people that already have office, that violates the neutrality pledge. But neutrality pledge. Right. Whoever wins the primary, you can't get involved in that. You can't get involved before a primary, helping either in comment or a general. You can only get involved once the primary has. That's correct. And that's because we want the will of the voters to prevail. Not the will of a bunch of party leaders in a backroom making decisions on which candidates they think the party should support. It shouldn't work that way. That is, for me, a direct result of my early days with Wellstone when the whole establishment was against him right and to 2016 watching what happened in that election. I think it's imperative that the party stays out of primaries. Not that primary shouldn't happen. Primary should happen. We want them to happen. But people like me should not be involved in putting our thumb on the scale and picking winners and losers. Our job is to be the referee to make sure there's a level playing field to call balls and strikes and to not actually be a player. We can't be involved in primaries. So that seems, I understand it in theory. But in practice, the idea that the DNC is going to be agnostic when it comes to in the same way that if you see a candidate that you feel like is going to have a better shot at a primary but is a crazy person that's not going to be able to survive in a regular election once the primary is over and we've seen that in the Republican Party a lot. They pick kind of the most mega person to get in a primary and then they get in a state election or a larger election and they fall apart. The idea that the DNC or any of those would not take a position on that or would be agnostic based on that pledge doesn't seem realistic or how it operates in practice. You are also part of recruiting. Of course. You guys go out and you recruit candidates. And this gets to a larger point and I don't mean to bring this up just from the Democrats. But there is a trust issue. that we have right now between the rhetoric of our politics and the reality of our politics. And Kamala Harris' book, I think, has done a real. I know everybody's shitting on it. - I haven't read it yet. - It does a real service. Maybe not in the way that she had intended or that the political parties will be happy about, but it exposes that the conversation that we all think is happening. But we're told over and over again is not happening, whether it be when you choose a running mate, are you looking at whether or not they're gay or Jewish or black? To the point of, when you looked at President Biden, did you think he was strong enough to go up against Donald Trump in the national election again? We were told over and over again how ridiculous those statements were, how crazy that is, that that no, I pick the most competent, I look for the best person possible. What Joe Biden behind the scenes is sometimes during meetings he'll be solving quadratic equations while we're also doing Medicare. It was all bullshit. - Yeah. - And Ken, that can't hold. And so when we talk about like, we're neutral and we stay out and here's the rules and this is how we play. Like, it really strikes me as a fundamental foundational problem of erosion of trust. (upbeat music) Folks, you know, this company, it meant mobile. I don't want to give you a keeping suspense in any of the things. They got themselves, maybe the ad spokesman of the century, Ryan Reynolds. But apparently, they need a little extra push and they're bringing in, I guess, you know, it's like anything, you gotta, you gotta sub in. One guy can't do all of it. So you, you bring in a couple of scrubs see if they can push a few more over the finish line and that's what this is. That's me for, for, for men mobile. But the pitch basically essentially stays the same. You got over price phone bills and you can lose them by switching to mid mobile. You know, the fucking things, 15 bucks a month. When you're looking for better, what do you think you're gonna grab one for nine? It's 15 bucks a month. High-speed data unlimited talking text. Largest 5G network in the nation. To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month, go to mintmobile.com/tws. That's mintmobile.com/tws. Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month. At mintmobile.com/tws, that's it. There's no catch. Up front payments of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12 months, plan required, $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only, greater than 50 gigabytes, may slow a network is busy. Includes up to 20 gigabyte hotspot. Capable device required. Availability, speed and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com. I really hope they speed that up. (upbeat music) I don't disagree with you, but the way you build trust is by not thumbing your nose at voters and telling them, "Guess what? We get to make these decisions and you don't. We as party leaders get to decide who the best candidate is and your voice doesn't matter." You and your-- - Well, you got, but you guys recruit-- - Of course, of course. - Of course, of course. - You do have resources. - Listen, I think the D-trip, the DS, other organizations within the larger ecosystem, of course, are going to support their preferred candidates. What I'm suggesting is party leaders, our job is to build infrastructures to win the November election. And ultimately, to make sure that we're growing our coalition, building our party, bringing voices in, and making sure that we honor the will of those voices. You can't be half pregnant. You can't say, "Oh yeah, guess what? We honor the will of the voters when it benefits our candidates." And then, of course, when they decide to send us Mamdani, say, "Well, you know, we're not going to endorse him." It's why I endorsed him right away. You either believe that in this idea that primary voters matter and that their voices matter, that they're the ones who select our nominee or you don't. It's either you do or you don't. And I say this truth. - It feels like building a house without a blueprint, if that makes sense. - Oh, I've got a blueprint. And I understand your point you're making. But again. - You've got a logistical blueprint, but I meant a more fundamental sort of blueprint of principle. - Well, the question here again is how do you grow your party? How do you bring new voices? - Are you asking me? - Well, no, I'm just saying, I have an idea, but I-- - Well, I think it's more, it's certainly rhetorical, but it's the larger question here, John, is that's the goal of the Democratic Party is to continue to grow. And to continue to bring voices in. - Let me answer your rhetorical question. - Yep, please. - You grow your party by inspiring people with a message that resonates with the reality of their lives. And you grow your party by understanding the disconnect from the sclerotic dying infrastructure of the status quo of that party and their ideas and how far away it is from the reality of those that would follow. - Yes, and so that's the piece that's missing. - Well, but I'm with you on that. And so imagine, by the way, you have a candidate who comes along who's inspiring all those folks, right? And the party leaders say, well, you know, that's not our candidate. We want someone else. - Each with his hand. - By God's will. - But this is the point, which is, the primaries are meant to actually make sure that those candidates represent exactly what you're talking about. So, you know, when a mom Donnie comes along, right? And then we decide, well, you know, it's not our type of candidate. We may not agree with him on all the issues. And, you know, he's not the type of candidate we want. We're essentially saying to all those primary voters who chose him, right? And who are excited about him. We don't want you in the party. That's my point here. - But in the primary, that is exactly what happened. I mean, in the primary, for the most part, the status quo went with Cuomo. I mean, they were saying that. And then one, and now they have to flip it back around. So, in the primary. - Yeah, that's right. And, you know, and people will play in primaries and candidates that elected officials and others are allowed to do that. - But you're asking me, how do you grow the party? And I'm saying is you grow the party by recognizing the reality of where your party is at. - Yes. - And even when you think about, you know, the Republican Party did an autopsy of their loss after Romney, right? And, you know, I still remember Sean Hannity on television going, the big problem is, we've got to be nicer to Hispanics. You know, we've got to let them know they're welcome here. And we've got to open up our country to Hispanic. - Right. - And nobody bought it because it was a calculation. It was math. It wasn't anything that resonated with the people that vote with that party. And it left their party right for a hostile takeover, which occurred through Donald Trump. - That's right. - The Democratic Party finds itself in the very same place as the Republican Party. - Yeah, I don't disagree. - I don't disagree. And the question is, do you want energy in the party or do you want it on the outside, right? Do you want it, do you want to grow your party ranks? You know, again, I go back to what I said before. Yes, it means it's messy debate and dissent and, you know, a wide degree of opinions on any given issue. You know, the Republican Party benefits from the fact that they're very homogenous as it relates to ideology. And so it's easier for them to be more disciplined, it's easier for them to be more nimble. And so-- - I don't know that that's necessarily the case, but-- - I think it is, I mean, you know, but let me say that. - In terms of idea, explain that 'cause I'm not so sure, especially now where Trump had inroads into the black community and the Hispanic community. And, you know, I would say the Democratic Party has plenty of litmus tests for their candidates. You know, that, you know, does the Republican Party have some pro-choice members? It does. Does the Democratic Party have pro-life candidates? Probably not. - Yeah, here's what I would say, you know, at the end of the day, there is a-- Donald Trump has essentially stifled out any dissent within his party. - Well, certainly not. - If a Republican elected official dare speak out and stand up for their position, they're drummed out of the party. And so I don't think they're-- - But it's not ideological dissent. It's basically, if you like me and you'll do what I say, you're in, 'cause he's not ideologically consistent. He's socialist at times. He's-- - Yeah, I appreciate that. I mean, he's all over the map. - But there's no-- I guess a larger point I'm trying to make is there's no dissent allowed in that party. There's no debate. There's no difference of opinion. The reality is, is they are a very-- - They are a very small tent as it relates to-- where they stand on these issues. And whether that's true, 'cause I'm sure you have conversations with Republicans who will tell you things privately, I do all the time. And they will then publicly essentially kisses ring to your point, right? Because they don't wanna be drummed out of the party. I think that's what I'm suggesting right now is we are a big tent. We do have different, I mean, you can see it play out in front of your eyes with the debates between the different elected officials in our party on any given issue. But I would say that, again, some people fear that, that's not me. It's a thing that helped our Democratic Party grow. Let me share this, it's a little bit of a long story, but 1948, you and I will, I know. - Wait, what, okay. - Hear me out on this, 'cause it's gonna take a little bit. - We're going true. - No, it's a, it's gonna take a little bit of a meander in fact, I don't know where it starts. 1948, a young mayor from Minneapolis, he's 34 years old at the time, brings a civil rights plank to the National Party Committee, to the DNC, to our platform committee. The platform committee surprisingly votes down a civil rights plank, votes it down. So there's young mayor- - By the way, not surprisingly. - Right, right, go ahead. - Yeah, there's young mayor brings his minority report to the floor and he starts building support for it, eventually it passes, he gets up and gives that famous speech where he says it's time for the Democratic Party to come out of the shadows of states' rights and march forth rightly into the bright sunshine of human rights civil rights. Ebeneer, of course, was Hubert Humphrey, but all the Dixie Crats got up from our party. They walked out and as a result, our party became the party that was cemented with civil rights and that was a game changer for sure. 1972 in Miami, right, the convention there. It was women and feminists who stood up and pushed our party on an equal rights amendment and abortion rights. 2012, I was proud in Charlotte to be one of the authors of the marriage equality amendment, right? I say this truly, John, nothing good in our party, I'm not gonna talk about the Republican Party, nothing good in our party happens without new voices, pushing our party to evolve on issues. It doesn't just happen organically through the goodness of elected officials and party leaders coming to their senses on any issue. It takes people pushing. So how short-sighted would it be to me for me as the chair of the DNC to say, you know what, I disagree with your position. So you're out. No, the only thing that helps our party grow and evolve is to bring new voices in who will help push our party to be better. And I truly believe that. And yes, it's caused a lot of consternation and pain and argument and all that over the years, but we're better off for it. And back to your earlier point about having a vision. I couldn't agree with you more. The reality is as we got to take it from just the platitudes and have a specific policy prescription to your point about 94, right? What New King Rich did? And I didn't agree with anything that he stood for is this. He gave people a value proposition. You vote for us. - Game and infrastructure. - Here's what we're gonna deliver. Here is a value proposition. The Democrats aren't doing shit to help you. Here's what we're gonna do. So what I have said to other leaders in this party is this. We've got to move from just the frame, from just the sort of larger vision we have to specific policy that gives people a sense of actually what we would do if they put us back in power. - Do you have a sense that you know, you know, it's interesting. Kamala Harris book is called "107 Days." And the premise of the book is it's just not enough time. People didn't know what I wanted to do. - I think that's right. - But let me give you the caveat. In 100 days, Trump has completely transformed the entire nature of how our government operates. Now it's the culmination of a 50 to 60 year plan put in place by, you know, Republican operatives, whether it be through their think tanks or, you know, the Federalist Society or any of those other places. But there's an intentionality to it that it's creating it. Democrats have been defending a broken status quo for 50 years. 107 days might not be enough time, but that ended in November. - Yes. - It's almost a year now. I still don't know what that plan would be. Other than maybe you get $5,000 for a new housing start to create a document like that, to come up with the ideas of that, the thinking to me feels too conventional and institutional. And that institutional thinking doesn't give me hope that there are those changes that are gonna be coming to the Democratic Party because, you know, I look at everything as process equals product. If your process is flawed, your product is gonna be. - Yes. - Is gonna be flawed. And I'm a little concerned about process and back to our original point, which was that's kind of more the purview of where you guys are. How are you, you seem to understand where you wanna go. Do you understand the process by which you wanna get there? - Yes, for sure. I mean, look, I mean, we have a brand problem, a message problem, a messenger problem, and a policy problem. - Well, that's the message, right? And so the message problem-- - It's not the message. - Well, here's the message is how you sell the policy, but shitty policies, it doesn't matter how you message it. Brand message, messenger problem, and we also have a tactics problem in terms of message delivery, where we're getting our message out to, et cetera. You can have the best message with a shitty messenger and it's not gonna break through. You could have a great messenger with the right message, but if it's not delivered to where people are getting their information, it doesn't matter. And the last thing is, if people are already preconditioned to believe something about the Democratic Party, i.e. a brand, right, it's also a challenge. I mean, think about this, John, last spring, and it should have been the biggest canary in the coal mine for Democrats, and most people miss this research. There was research that showed for the first time in modern history that the perceptions of the two political parties has changed, that the majority of Americans now believe that the Republican Party best represents the interest of the working class in the poor, and the Democratic Party is a party the wealthy in the elites. That is a wholesale sea change of where people, and what people believed the Democratic Party was fighting for. So they already have in their minds many parts of our coalition working class people believe that the Republican Party best represents their economic future and their chance for success. So if your mind's already in that space to Kamala's point in 107 days, it's very hard to actually change that. Look, we spent many of us in the years leading up to that election, spent time talking about Biden's excellent economic record, right? High GDP, low unemployment, a boom in stock market, you know, real job growth and wage growth for the first time in 30 years we saw wages increasing. And you know, at a macro level is great, but when I was out there trying to sell that, especially a union members and working class people, I know they were like, what kind of plan, what planet do you fucking live on? Because that's not happening in my life. I can barely put groceries on the table. I can't afford my rent, you know, at the end of the day I can barely afford to take my kids on a vacation, right? This is not, this economy's not working for me. It's, it goes back to this doge thing. We become, but that's what I'm, I think what I'm saying is you're saying, if we, you know, get better messengers and better messages, and I'm saying that is all wrapping paper. You know, if you don't have policies that resonate with them, and that's where I think what we're talking about. So my, my concern is that Donald Trump is a tremendous diagnostician. He is able to look into a place and go, here's the fault line of this issue. Here's where people's complaints are, right? To say that the Biden administration thought their economy was great, and when we went out to talk to people that turned out it sucked is malpractice for the political class of the democratic party. So I don't disagree with you. I worry that when I hear the fixes, we got to really think about messaging and messengers and all that without hearing a more prescribed, you know, diagnostic, right? If you don't have the diagnosis about why that is. - Absolutely. - Why is it that government policies are not connecting? Is it because the bureaucratic landmines make it so that we can't build Wi-Fi and rural areas? Is it because our tax dollars will reflexively defend, you know, foreign programs or things that are going to be cut without realizing, you know, people are not feeling the effects of their tax dollars. - Yeah, I mean, I think it's all of that. And the reality is, look, John, I fired all those consultants. I fired every single one of them. - So that's why unemployment is taking place. - There you go, no. - 'Cause it's a large part. - Let me tell you, I'm not interested. I mean, let me give you an example. Last year, we spent, the campaign spent a billion dollars on broadcast TV. Overall, there was 10 billion dollars. - How much? - One billion dollars, just the campaign. - In 107 days. Where are he? you know, over that time, you know, - On a Saturday. - On a Saturday. - Right, so, but let me just say this. Well, Kamala's campaign and Biden's campaign combine a billion dollars on broadcast TV. - I'm sure. - Here's a reality on this. I'm in my, you know, mid fifties. I still read a hard time. - I'll tell you, you look fantastic. (laughing) - Thank you. Here's a deal, my, you know, I still read a hard copy of a newspaper, my boys think I'm a nut, 'cause I can get it on my phone, right? But the one thing my wife and I don't do, John, is I don't watch broadcast TV anymore. In fact, I don't know many people in my age, I do. I mean, maybe when I'm- - Is that include cable, basic cable? - No, I don't watch cable anymore. I'm all on streamin'. - I know, I'm sorry, John, but the point is this, the reality is our tactics is a huge problem as well. But underlying all of this is what you said. If we, if people don't know what the hell we're fighting for, and what specifically we would do to improve their lives, it doesn't matter. We can fix the tactics, we can find the best messengers, we could fix our brand. At the end of the day, we have to give people something to vote for. And I will say this, what is the lesson from I'm Donnie? And it's not ideological, people seem to think, well, the big lesson here is you need to run to the left. No, the lesson here, whether you're in a very conservative district or a, you know, a very left-leaning district, is very simple. One, authenticity matters. People have a bullshit meter. People can tell, you know, my old boss, Paul Wellstone, used to say, you should never separate the life you lead from the words you speak. The reality is there's too many politicians who do that. And at the end of the day, people can smell through it. When you're talking about just platitudes, right? To your point, people can smell through it. Don't just tell me what I want to hear. I need to see you actually show me what you're going to do and then deliver on it. And I want to come back on the delivering piece in a moment. But I would say, can I just, please? Very quickly, you know, again, authenticity is the new buzzword. It's the new strategy is authenticity, but it's still a strategy. What I think connected with Mamdani is he diagnosed a frustration within the population of New York City. He understood that the real tenuousness of New York City is affordability that people that the city itself has become. And it wasn't the authenticity of, and I'll eat with my hands, and I'll go out to the San Genero and act like a real dude. It was, how in God's name is a plate of food from a cart $12 or $15 and he deconstructed that. He was able to identify the crux of the issue and very simply present some ideas that might be able to battle. It's simpler than authenticity and the messenger and the metrics. Well, I do think it's simpler than that because at the end of the day, we could have plenty of people who are seeing the exact same thing who aren't believed by voters. At the end of the day, this is where the authenticity matters. If you, it's not just sane. Well, you have to believe it, certainly. But that's the point. The reason we've lost trust is because people don't believe that we actually believe the shit we're selling them. That we're saying, we're telling them what they want to hear. To my, to my point in the book, when she says, I didn't go with Pete Buttigieg because he's gay and that'd be too far. And you're like, oh my God, it's actually reverse affirmative action. Well, it's like what? Yeah, but I think the point here is that you have to be an authentic incredible messenger and it's not authenticity. Yes, that's the new buzz word. But now you got people, you know, it's the same thing with the, you know, people want to show strength, right? And so now, you know, everybody curses now. Well, right. By the way, a trend that I was on. There you are. Everyone is. Everyone is. Everyone is horned. Right, right. But everyone's cursing. Everyone's like, getting up, giving these fiery speeches. You know, you've got male elected officials growing beards because they want to show strength and masculinity. It's bullshit, strength, it's action, it's action and it's authenticity. Do you really, really believe the shit you're selling? Because let me ask you a question. And this is a question I post to Democrats. Is this another rhetorical one or the answer? Nope, nope. It's a question for your viewers. If you're not willing to fight like hell in this moment for the things you believe in, do you really believe in them at all? Because the greatest divide right now in our party, John, is not ideological. The greatest divide in our parties between people who are using every lever of power they have to actually fight back in this moment and stand up and fight for what they believe in. And those who are sitting on the sidelines. But let me get back to the two other points that I think, I want to answer to that as well. Okay. But to Mem Donnie, right, it was not just authenticity. He also campaigned for something to the point we were making earlier. He didn't just run against the establishment against his opponents. He said, here's my plan. Here's what I would do if I was elected, right? And it was focused on affordability. And the last thing that I think is important is he was ubiquitous. In this sense that he campaigned everywhere in person throughout New York. You couldn't walk throughout New York without running into his campaign in some way. And that was true in terms of his online presence. To your point about being on a halal food podcast, I watched that food podcast at like 25 to 50 people. If you had been listening to his consultants, they would say, oh, don't go on that podcast. There's far a few people listening. The point is, is be ubiquitous. Be everywhere. Don't discriminate. Talk to every single voter and give them a sense of what you're standing for. And do it in a way that's real. Just be yourself. Just be honest. Be transparent. Be vulnerable. Put yourself out there. Don't try to wordsmith. Don't do one of these. A finger in the wind politician. You know, long before there was a Bernie Sanders, there was a Paul Wellstone who was a OG progressive voice in the Senate. And the reason people liked Paul is not because they agreed with them 100% of the time. But they knew that he had a core set of convictions that he was willing to stand up and fight for come hell or high water. That's authenticity. That's what Memdani had. You cannot fake authenticity. It's either real or it's not and people have a bullshit meter and they can see that. I want to talk a little bit about this other thing that's sort of boiling up which is we've got to fight. Yeah. We've got to stand up and fight and people. You got to fight like hell. And I believe this is a moment that's going to take effort and energy and anything that I've ever seen done in Washington that I thought was of good value was a protracted battle. What I'm seeing a lot from the Democratic Party is you got to stand up and fight. I'm not seeing a lot of directional energy to that regard. I'm seeing some theater. I'm seeing a variety of I'm not seeing a coherent effort. The thing about the energy right right now out in the country is maybe the most vast reserve of potential energy that I can recall seeing maybe sense and I was very young. And so I probably don't have a great understanding of it. But as the Vietnam War was winding down there was a feeling in the country of vast potential energy of a new way to move forward. And I'm seeing a lot of that now and I'm seeing the urgings of a party. The issue that I'm seeing is to convert that potential energy into kinetic energy is going to dissipate out into the atmosphere. If it doesn't have a focus, if it doesn't have a parabolic way of creating heat and light because it's not enough to say you've got to go to these town halls and stand up and yell. Like that's not where people's thirst is. They want to convert that potential energy to kinetic energy to start. They want to start understanding that the politician that wants to lead them knows what's wrong with the system that they're seeking to fix. And I have not seen a great deal of that and isn't that job one that will help be the stepping stone for all those other things that you talk about. That are so necessary right. And you're talking about is necessary to create a sustained movement of change in that direction. Yes. But it is. Yes. Have we missed that? Oh, you know what we forgot to do is build the front steps. No, I don't think so. I mean, look, this is a rebuilding process right now. And part of the reason I ran is not just as a result of the last election cycle, John. I have seen over 20 some odd years negligence on the part of the Democratic Party. Let's just take how we campaign as an example, right, to put the messaging stuff aside for a second. We show up three months before an election and have a first conversation with voters, right. And usually that first conversation is, hey, we need to do something for our party. We need to vote for us, right. So it's a very transactional relationship. Then again, they don't see us for two more years. Same time we come around. We have the same conversation. Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat. And suddenly people start saying, well, holy shit, the only time I see it, I'm going to see that Ken guy is when he needs something for me, right. He doesn't really seem to be invested in me, my community, my life. And so you start to lose trust, right. The second piece of this, by the way. is delivering, which is we get into power. We make these promises, hey, vote for Democrats. We're gonna actually make a difference in your community. We get into power and then we don't deliver on those promises, right? In a real way that actually moves forward. So the idea of actually presenting a vision of going back, again, no one believes a status quo is working for them right now. We have to present a new vision of government that works for working people again, a new vision of where this Democratic Party is going because that old vision, people don't buy it. It's clearly the brand is broken, but also that old sort of platform and approach to policy is not working, which again, requires us to move from the platitudes to the specifics of people. No, how is what you sell me, any different from what you told me for the last 30 years and my life is still the fucking same, right? So who's involved in that process that, because when you talk about, I'm gonna relate this to the only thing I know how to relate it to, which is the New York football giants. They are also rebuilding. It's been about 10 years now and they keep talking about, we just gotta fix the offensive line. But they keep going with the sort of the status quo of people. That goes back a little bit to what we talked about earlier, is the process by which you are doing that. Flexible enough, open enough, visionary enough that you're not just bringing in, near a tendon and Jake Sullivan and going like, so have at it. Are you, is the institutional thinking being challenged enough to create that step that needs to be created? Yeah, I mean, look, we're certainly pushing here. I mean, we started right when I came in with a whole branding and narrative project. That's outside of what our policy makers and others are doing up in Congress and throughout the country, to really, and this, again, is very technical, but I think it's important, you know. Technical, in the sense that like digital or computer. No, no, no, no, no, no, here's where it's technical, which is, I think the research that we've used to sort of understand public sentiment is really flawed. Quantitative and qualitative research is only as good as the inputs in it. So we're only-- Come to the deli, I go to, you'll get the feedback is very clear. This is the point I'm making, actually, John. Thank you for sharing this because actually Bill Clinton said this in '92, which, you know, again, hasn't changed, which is we really want to know how the American people are going to sit in a cafe or go to a Friday night football game and listen to parents around you, right? We don't do that anymore. And by the way, because we're only connecting with voters three months before an election, we're just getting a sliver of the actual public sentiment. And this is why we have a brand problem. At the end of the day, we're not listening anymore. And so much of this is listening. So we are from a technical standpoint. We're using AI and social listening tools to actually get on a daily basis what's happening out there on social media. But we're also getting out to the cafes and to the football games or doing some graphic research. For AI listening tools, it's so fucking simple. It is simple. People have kids. And then they have kids and the kids get older and they got to save money for college. And just in the moment where they're spending a shit ton of money on college, their parents get older. And they got to spend money on doing their parents. And there's nothing that the government is really providing for them or helping them out with. And the cost of their housing and the education and the elder care and the childcare. Like, do we really need AI tools to understand that it's about? No, we don't. But I think you're right. That trap. It's the trap that people find themselves. You are absolutely right, John. And this is the issue. You don't need any of that, right? But the question is, without any of that, you're just sitting in a back room with a bunch of policy makers deciding on things that have no connection to the American people in their lives. So you have to have a sense of-- They're doing that anyway. Washington DC is the most insulated, isolated lobby surrounded. Agreed. Agreed. I don't spend much time here. I've been-- I've been-- I unfortunately live in this godforsaken town now. And my family's all back in Minnesota. But I will tell you in the eight months-- It's very safe now. Yeah, thank you, federal troops. But let me just say this. Eight months on the job. I've been in 32 states. Elections aren't one in DC. They're one in the states. And they're one by connecting to people. And they're one by connecting to exactly what you're talking about, the struggles of everyday life. And I will tell you, as much as you talked about having a very prescriptive policy point, I think that's right. We do have to have a policy agenda. But we also have to zoom out, because it's very simple. It's what you said. And I'll share the story of my father-in-law for a moment, because he's a beef cattle farmer in southern Minnesota and 85 years old in-- Oh, wow. Yeah, he voted for-- And he's still out there doing it? He's still out there. Oh, that's not easy, boy. But I will tell you, he has this-- he's voted Democrat his whole life. And in 16, 20, and 24, he voted for Trump. And in 16, I said, Dave, why did you vote for Trump? Think he'd give me some sort of policy answer on egg policy, or what he told me, and this goes to your point. He said, look, the high school that I went to has closed down and consolidated with another high school. So I no longer have a Friday night football game to go to the grocery store on Main Street as close. So I got to drive a lot further to just get my groceries. The clinic that was in town has closed. And now my wife, who has Parkinson's disease, I have to drive 100 miles to get her health care, right? The farm that my family's farm for 135 years, none of my kids, including your wife, want to come home and farm it. And so it was truly. I mean, what you're not hearing there is policy. I want you to-- what you're hearing is-- here's a guy, 85 years old. He shouldn't have a nod of anxiety in the world about his future, because his future is not that long, right? In the sense that he's on the tail end of his life. He should be living carefree at this moment. But he does have a nod of anxiety in his future, because his whole identity is being taken away from him. The world around him is changing. And what he feels is no one sees him. No one cares about what's happening in his community. So along comes the biggest con man and snake oil salesman in the world, saying, make America great again. And there's people like Dave O'Rourke saying, well, you know what? I do want things to be the way they were. I do want my community to be vibrant and robust. Now, of course, there's nothing that Donald Trump would do or has done that would actually improve Dave O'Rourke's life, just the opposite. But the point is, at the end of the day, one thing you said that really resonates with me, it's really simple. What people want in life. It's very simple. They just want to be able to get ahead. They want to be able to build a better life for their families. They want to be able to maybe just maybe take a vacation, to retire with dignity, to give their kids a shot in an opportunity. It's as simple as that. Yes, there's policies underneath. We need to talk about. But when we lose that piece and the policies are disconnected from the struggle, then what the fuck are we doing? That's what I'm talking about. And I also think in all the craziness that goes like, I almost think that the next great successful politician, I think they're slogan for the election will be, it's enough already, because that's what it feels like. And I do think sometimes the spiral feels inevitable, but I don't think it is. And oddly enough, I remain steadfastly optimistic. That's good within that. And is that, do you continue to feel that way as well? I'm very optimistic about our chances to win. And I will tell you, I'm going to switch to the other piece. Just winning without. No, no, this is my point. I'm not optimistic that winning in 26 and 28 helps us win. And what do I mean by that? If we do it the wrong way again, we're not building trust with voters. If we do it the wrong way again without a very specific policy agenda, we're not building something that transforms people's lives. If we build it in a way that actually doesn't reflect where the American people are at, it's just not going to work. And so I am optimistic that we'll win. I'm not as optimistic as much as I'm trying to change the way we do this, that we can change to your point, this whole ecosystem in this short time. Here's what I'm pessimistic about. And I want to be really clear, I think in this moment right now, there's something bigger at stake here that we didn't even talk about. And I don't want to focus on Trump. But when I was growing up, there were values that united us in this country that were not partisan values, that united Democrats and Republicans. And you and I could say, well, at least they agree on this, right? Now, those values, the idea of due process in this country, or the rule of law, separation of power, belief in a free independent press, the idea that we would stand with our allies around the world and protect emerging democracies. Those are things that we could always count on Democrats and Republicans agreeing upon by and large, right? But in large I would say I would say that's a slightly nostalgic view. But listen, do you, in this moment right now, those values, even the freedom of speech, right? I mean, shit, listen, I will not in any way argue that we are not under a pressurized crucible of unitary executive, like I haven't seen. It is, it's the type of governance from a really vindictive and small person creating emergencies that don't exist. I just wanna make sure that like there was no past of all Americans could at least agree that there were three separate branches of government and they all had an equal say. And like that's never been the real case. And we've always argued back and forth from the expansion of rights for different groups. Of course. The suppression of rights for different groups. Like we cannot say in a country that had Jim Crow from the decades that we had it that somehow we all agreed on certain values, 'cause we didn't. No, but I think at the core, there may have been differences of opinion about what those values are. Now you have a party who basically could give a shit about due process and says as much. They could give a shit about the rule of law and separation of power, right? They're principle of law. So I mean, I think that's the challenge right now is we both have to fight for something, right? And at the same time, we have to acknowledge that when people say to me, right, you know, well, I don't know if there's gonna be elections in 26, you know, who knows if this democracy survives that long. I think if people had said that to me four years ago, I would have thought maybe they should be institutionalized, right? It's not out of the realm of possibility. And I understand people's nervousness and anxiousness because so many of those sort of core values, yes, there were differences, but they seem to be fundamental to who we are. I mean, think about just the attack in the last week on the freedom of speech. There's a reason it's the first amendment, right? It's the most important right in our constitution and our bill of rights is ability for people to stand up, to speak out, to share their opinions. And that's now under attack. So I say all of this because I think where people's angst and anxiety comes from is not just the fact that the Democratic Party has a piss-poor message and isn't necessarily presenting an alternative to what the Republicans are doing. It's also what the Republicans are doing. And they're anxiety, that holy shit, we may not have our democracy anymore. Yeah, there is definitely a tenuousness to a lot of the things that we thought were, you know, kind of, it feels a little bit like the hot air balloon where it's just like there's just now the two ropes that are holding it together. And you're like, I don't know about those two. But we really appreciate taking the time. I know you're busy. I know you want to get out of DC. DNC Chair Ken Martin, thanks for joining us today. Really appreciate the conversation. Thank you, John. Appreciate it. Thanks, man. I'm going to tell you guys something. I don't know how to feel. I felt like every time I brought up something, he was like, yeah, that's right. Let's go back to the, you know, yeah, but you don't want to do like these consultant driven. I've got rid of all the consultants. So here's what we're doing. We're going out with the AI and we're looking into the thing. I'm like, but I think we just didn't we just say, no, it's about authenticity, but it's not authenticity. He diagnosed a problem. He went, no, no, not authenticity. Well, you just said it was, I felt like I was talking, it was like an improv exercise where I would say something and he would go, yes, and no, and and then yes, and no, and then yes, and yes, yeah. How were you experienced? I felt for a second like, am I being gassed? Like I wasn't sure what was happening. No, there was a lot of contradiction just from past statements and by past, I mean, a month ago to today and even within this conversation. So I can totally see why there's no message. Not only can I see whether there's no message, I can see why there's no message. Yeah, I'm not even sure we settled on that. I mean, I've been told that the Republican Party is this existential threat to democracy and I happen to agree with that. But whether or not democratic politicians act on that, seems to only come into play when it aligns with their political ambitions. And I'm exhausted by that right now. I would love if we could come up with something to rally around and not just wait it out. Right. I understand that Ken Martin can't control the candidates, even though he's recruiting people and putting-- No, no, no, neutrality. They have a declaration of neutrality. I know. But something that did stood out to me is that we didn't discuss the fact that Mamdani partially was so successful because the other Democrats, like Brad Lander, rallied around and made it more about the Democrats than about individual power. And something that stood out to me in our Pritzker conversation two weeks ago is that when you specifically asked that question, is individual ambition getting in the way of Democrats working together? And his answer was about how people get elected. That was the wildest part to me. By the way, thank you for bringing all that together with past conversation because I don't listen to this podcast. I don't care for it. But I have to say, I think that's what struck me is you would say, isn't there a principled, inspiring message of change that is step one to building the thing? Absolutely. And that's why we changed our branding. Just none of the statements felt-- it all felt discordant to me. And I, boy, do I have sympathy for the difficulty of what it is and how exhausting it must be. But wow, is that hard to listen to eight months into? And the strategy still seems to be historically the party non-empower gains seats in the midterm. Yeah, and when you look at, I mean, the 2012 autopsy, they came out of that with the same diagnosis. I think that Democrats are having now, which is we have these amazing ideas. And it's all really good. Except we can't communicate it to the people. And we just have to get better at that. And the Republicans were successful in the 2014 midterms. Maybe that's just the way that it goes. But they lost their party. They lost the country. Yeah. I'd say the only thing really that's changed in the messaging from eight months ago to now is just the passage of the so-called big, beautiful bill. They're saying we need to highlight how it's going wrong, what's bad with it. That's really the only change I've seen. But still defending the status quo of programs that most people think are broken. They somehow devalue even the struggles of their own actual constituents in an effort to appease people that, to his point, may be unwinnable. But maybe they're unwinnable. But boy, it would be helpful if you had something that you thought was affirmative and not just strategic. But fuck, man. But we are back anyway, Brittany. What are the questions they wanted from us this week? They're right in. First up, since Trump renamed the Department of Defense to the Department of War, what would you rename the Department of Justice under Trump? Oh, wow. I would say the law firm of Trump, Giuliani, and Associates, I would rename it as that. Yeah, no, it is when the Department of Justice becomes just a department in the Trump organization. So however he would, I would say he'd probably call it like the eighth floor. Oh, you got to run to the eighth floor. They'll take care of that stuff for you. You'll be able to sue whoever it is that you need to sue. So yeah, there is no Department of Justice. There is merely the legal wing of the Trump organization, and that's how it will remain sad. Wonderful. Wonderful. I wish I had a better moniker for it. It could be-- it could be actually-- no, I was going to make a joke about Jewish lawyers, but I-- Do it. On Russia, Shana. On Russia, Shana, I forgot. I forgot. Go ahead. What's the next? John, is it time for another rally to restore sanity and do our fear? No, last one didn't take. Take either. And I don't think I can have another day where I fuck up without even realizing that I'm fucking-- you know, we had this whole-- I've told you guys with that whole thing planned. You know, Kat Stevens, US of Islam, is going to come out and sing peace train. Steven's going to cut him off. Ozzy Osborne's going to jump in and sing crazy train. And then we're going to end it with the OJ sing and love train. And the whole thing goes off. I mean, we rehearsed it in a trailer that morning. Ozzy Osborne, literally right before the entire performance started after we had done all this rehearsing in the trailer, I go up to Ozzy right before and I go, "Use if it's going to do peace train." Just, Steven's going to cut off. And then you jump in with crazy train, right? And he's like, "Oh, yeah, it's going to get into the train." As I'm walking away, he goes, "Huh? Who's Steven?" [LAUGHTER] So that was-- and then literally like the next day, Salman Rushdie's on the phone with me going, "How can a rally to restore sanity have a singer that wants me dead?" And I'm like, "Wait, what? What the fuck?" So there was a whole-- hullabaloo. So yeah, not only did I we not restore sanity anywhere, but I lost mine. But it's a delight. How can people keep these questions coming? Our Twitter, we are weekly show pod, Instagram threads, TikTok, Blue Sky, we are weekly show podcast, and you can like, subscribe and comment on our YouTube channel, the weekly show at John Stewart. Respect, guys, as always, fabulous, fabulous job. Lead producer, Lauren Walker, producer, Brittany Memevedevic, producer, Gillian Spear, video editor and engineer, Rob Vittolo, audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, executive producers, Chris McShane, Katie Gray, guys, fantastic job. And we will see you all next week. Bye-bye. The weekly show at John Stewart is a comedy central podcast, is produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.