Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
John Stewart is back in the host chair at The Daily Show, which means he's also back in our ears on The Daily Show Ears Edition podcast. The Daily Show podcast has everything you need to stay on top of today's news and pop culture. You get hilarious satirical takes on entertainment, politics, sports, and more from John and the team of correspondents and contributors. The podcast also has content you can't get anywhere else, like extended interviews and a roundup of the weekly headlines.
Listen to The Daily Show, ears edition, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey, everybody. Welcome once again to The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. My name is Jon Stewart. And so last we left off, Joe Biden was the nominee. There was nothing that anybody could do to not have Joe Biden be the nominee. It's just too damn late. It's too damn late. It's too damn hard. The American people won't stand for it. The Democratic Party won't stand for it. Donald Trump is now the inevitable next president. They are unified, united.
deified and on their way. And now there's a new candidate and she is deified and on her way. And it's a land and Donald Trump can't believe that he chose JD Vance, who's a lunkhead. And now it's been a fucking week and the whole thing is twisted on its head and none of it is really what's happening. And we still have another three and a half months of this
I'm here with my erstwhile producers, Brittany Mimetic and Lauren Walker, and I apologize for the sheer mind-blowedness of it. And the media takes their cues from the most prognosticating and speculating amongst us and locks it in as conventional wisdom, and you can just see none of it is real.
It's mind boggling. Yeah. We had such a hard time. I don't know how you guys do this. Why is it? It's difficult for us to book pundits or journalists that are on television. Their organizations will not let them come on our podcast. Let that sink in for just a moment. Organizations that rely on access and transparency.
refused to allow their reporters to come on podcasts to talk about the issues of the day. Why?
What do they say to you, Brittany, when you ask them? Honestly, I haven't been able to get clear answers, which is part of the frustration. We're not naming names, but we may at some point. No, it's on the line. But it's unlike anything I've really ever seen kind of in the decade that I've been doing this, honestly. It just, you know, and even the simple question like phone calls go unanswered. It's a very just like,
we're gonna we're gonna politely decline on this this large organization
NBC left you on read. Didn't they leave after saying, no, we can't have our reporter talk to you. Yeah. And then they stopped answering as to why. And the reporters say, I'd love to do it. Yeah. In this case, reporters are like, would love to join. Just need to get network approval. Network approval comes back and says, we're going to decline on this. Yeah. And I say, Oh,
Why? Is there a scheduling issue? Is there, you know, what is the reason we're politely declining? So you call and you just say, can I understand it? Like, is it, you know, any, any information? We're reasonable, nice people. Well, most of the time you are, I don't know if I get to fall into that, that category, but, but you certainly do, but just let that sink. I just want people at home to let that sink in for a
News organizations stonewall inquiries as to why their reporters are not allowed or being restricted from just being able to come on a stupid fucking podcast.
and give their opinion, even as just a promotional tool for either the reporter or for the organizations that they work for. Yes. You know, I've once heard a wise man say, democracy dies in darkness. But how is it possible that a news organization would not feel shame and bewilderment
at using the techniques of obfuscation that they rail against from politicians and public figures. Lauren, you were in journalism for a long time. Do you recall there being that type of, how in the world, I understand that you can't go right
articles for other papers, or you can't host a show on another network. But these types of promotional or cross-pollinating appearances should be standard fare. Nobody's saying that person is now hired to be a part of our regular ongoing commentary. I'm reluctant to speculate because...
you know, not very journalistic of me, but I do imagine that they feel some type of ownership of these, you know, journalists that they pay their paychecks. Maybe they don't want their ideas anywhere else, or maybe you appear partisan and they want to avoid, you know, NBC. I mean, they have MSNBC. They have, let me ask you a question. Do you think this is a universal rule or this is me? Like, it's hard not to take this personally. It's a,
Once a week podcast. But also we plug this, like we will say like NBC or CNN or MSNBC contributor. We had the same problem with CNN. They gave us a bunch of shit for trying to bring somebody on. Like it's, it's bonkers and it makes no sense. And I would think it's, it's an embarrassment to those organizations, those news organizations. And the crazy thing to me is the journalists themselves think it's insane.
Yeah, they want to do it. And it shows the fundamental disconnect between the people that are running these organizations and what those organizations are supposedly there for, which is informing the public on the issues of the day, whether they're informing it on somebody's podcast or something else.
Just absolute nonsense. But I wanted to point that out because, and this is inside baseball, and who even knows how much of this survives the edit into the show. But I just wanted to give props to Lauren and Brittany who have to constantly pivot. We are professional pivoters at this point. It makes it fun. That's so not the case. But I am excited about today's program.
Because we do have access to two incredibly knowledgeable individuals. And we're going to be talking about all the changes that have been taking place within the presidential race. We're going to be talking about...
uh, the media's inability to respond to it with any kind of chill, but it's all grand pronouncements. It's all just news. Biden is inevitable. Biden can't be inevitable. Biden can't win. Trump is inevitable. Kamala is inevitable. Trump is now regret like, holy shit, calm down.
Uh, so I'm going to, let's, let's jump in with that now and, uh, and, and see where we go. All right, here we are. We're going to talk to our guests, Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, Pulitzer prize winning author, whose most recent book is an unfinished love story, personal history of the 1960s. And also Eugene Daniels, Politico White House correspondent and playbook coauthor, co-author
Doris, lovely to see you again. You too. Yay. And Eugene, very nice to meet you, Eugene. We've not met, but I'm excited that you're on the program and Doris is on the program. Doris, I'm going to start with you real quick. As a presidential historian, this is catnip, I would assume, an unprecedented moment in presidential history.
Are you tasting the Pulitzer? Are you tasting what's coming your way when you write this book? What are your thoughts on the historic nature of what we're seeing right now? Well, you know, mostly I live with dead presidents and I think about them in the morning and I think about them when I go to bed at night and I'm recounting history that went long before, right? And I'm asking them questions and they don't answer me. But this time I'm living in a clearly historic time
And for a presidential historian, it just brings back echoes from the past constantly. I'm living in the 1860s or the 1920s or this 1968. And so it's an extraordinary time. I mean, you're happy to be living in a difficult time. What do you when you're hearing the echoes? What's what's resonating the most? Is it is it LBJ and him?
stepping out in 1968 and opening up, that was obviously, I guess, before the primaries or during the primaries. What are the echoes that are resonating the most?
I think it's clearly that's the last time that a president withdrew from the race. He withdrew on March 31st of 1968. And as you say, he was already in the primaries. He wasn't doing well. He had been battered in New Hampshire. He was about to lose in Wisconsin. But much more importantly, what was happening to him was that he had been told that unless he sent 200,000 more troops
to Vietnam, and it could only be a stalemate if that was so. And he decided the time had come to wind the war down. So that was the major speech he was going to give, but he knew nobody would believe it if he was still a candidate. So he prepared that speech. It stunned the nation when he not only said that he was going to wind the war down, but that he was going to withdraw from the presidency so he could spend all of his time on the presidential duties of
And I remember I was watching that, was stunned. My husband was up in New Hampshire, Richard Goodwin, with Theodore White, the great journalist. And White had told him that five days before he had seen LBJ, who looked terrible, he was under such pressure and he felt like his face was sunken. His voice was so soft. And now he watched him on the screen before he even said he was going to withdraw. And he looked like a different person, composed, relaxed. The tensions had been reduced. So that's what reminded me most, I think, of what's happening now.
Now, to be fair, and I think this is for the historical record, LBJ never looked particularly great. Let's be clear. Oh, wait a minute. I'm going to argue with you. I'm going to argue with him. LBJ was a caricaturist dream. Every one of his features would be accentuated and exaggerated. But it's fascinating. Now, Eugene...
you're in the middle of this. So Doris kind of gives us this historical macro overview. You're the micro guy. You're in there every day. The breakneck speed at which this is all happening is
has got to be dizzying for anybody who's on the inside trying to cover all the developments. Yeah. I'm hoping you can't see the bags under my eyes or the eyes of the rest of the correspondents or reporters that are trying to cover this story. You know, these are unprecedented times. I could use some more precedent at times myself. That would be great. But I think, you know, the thing that
was really surprising outside of the debate. So we're watching the debate. We go to political offices. There's dozens of people there watching. That happens around the country in newsrooms.
And immediately people started to be a little bit confused about what was happening. And then when President Biden said, I beat Medicare, that is when our phone started blowing up. So really that sentence is really what set off kind of this entire firestorm. I beat Medicare. Yeah. And then Trump said, yeah, you did. Eugene, I want to ask you. So reporters and White House correspondents, they're traveling with the president at all times. Yeah.
I feel like we've been watching this in slow motion for two or three years. We understood, you know, there was a sense that Biden was, you know, he and Trump are both. They're older men. There was sort of a sense that Biden was going to be a one-term president. He himself said, you know, I'm running to stop Trump and that's going to be it. That debate couldn't have come as a shock to the people that have been with him day in and day out, no? I think...
It did. It did. And this is why, right? So, you know, we don't get to see President Biden at all the private moments that a lot of like now you have members of Congress and governors kind of coming out and having these stories where either he didn't remember their name or he lost his train of thought or he said something a little weird.
some of this is stuff that Biden has always been doing, right? So we're not starting, you know, the bar's already kind of low here for what people are anticipating from him. He's not, you know, people don't see him as like this orator. And, you know, if you think about it, the people around him,
people who have been doing this for a really long time, if he was like that all the time, why would you debate? They decided that June 27th was the debate that they wanted. They decided that it should be before he had the nomination sewn up. They thought it would focus the American people on the race. It has. Not in the way that they wanted to,
Right. Were they, were they diluting themselves to some extent? I think part of it is like, you, you know, when you have an older person in your life and if, as things start to change, you, you're, it's like also when you're like gaining weight in your house, right? Like as I, as I gain weight, me and my husband don't see it, but I go home.
I go home and see my grandmother. She's like, what are these 20 extra pounds? They didn't realize Biden had a couple of, he had some love handles, had a couple of Dunkin' Donuts. Things were getting out of control there. That is like the feeling. And when you talk to people, you know, that's what they say. And they knew he was old, but they were moving forward. And I think the most important aspect of this is that
you can put blinders on when your focus is no one else can beat Donald Trump, right? That is- - Maybe that was the delusion. - That's the thing, right? That's the commandment within kind of Biden world and always has been. Only one person has, and they felt like he was the best poised to do so.
We don't know that that's actually true. We're going to test that. The Democrats are going to test that theory moving forward. But that was moving and motivating them to kind of move forward in the way that they were. Whether or not they saw—at some point, everyone will write books and long, deep articles about what people actually saw. Doris will write books and long, deep articles. Doris, what has changed—
I'm curious what has changed from the sort of the boys on the bus, from that idea of the access to the presidential candidates. In your mind, was the Biden campaign different traditionally from other campaigns in the way that they limited access or has access? Do we have more reporters now, but less actual access?
Oh, I do think that access seemed more limited. I mean, just think about FDR. He had two press conferences a week, every single week, two press conferences. And that meant that the reporters had access to him and they could ask him questions. He could answer them. And he then he was also having fireside chats so that I think things have diminished over time. But they also protected FDR to some extent. You know, there was always that idea that they would never talk about his physical infirmity.
No, in fact, it's incredible. When he went to give an acceptance speech in 1936, as he was going down the aisle holding onto two strong people, his braces unlocked, he fell on the floor, and they had to pick him up. He got up there and he gave a great speech, the Rendezvous with Destiny speech. They never mentioned that he had fallen.
or that his braces had unsnapped. So things were different then, and that's a problem. But I do think, I just want to go back to one thing you said before when you said that how badly LBJ looked. I knew him in the last years of his life when his hair grew long and it was white and he looked like a cowboy. And that was a good looking LBJ.
Doris. Doris, you got a thing for president. You know, I've heard you speak rapturously about LBJ. By the way, one of the few people in the country who believes Lincoln was a sexy beast. That's Doris Kearns Goodwin. Mm-hmm.
I'm with Doris on that. All right. Fair enough. Abe's up there. You know what happened, Eugene, was that I showed John a picture when I was on his show a long time ago of Lincoln as a rugged person before the beard. And he really did look sexy. I wish that beard had never come. But you know, one of the
things you think about is that the pressures on the president are such, can you imagine what they were on with Biden once this debate had happened? You know, you want to have a second term. You feel like that's even more important than the first term because it's an endorsement of you. You go over and you say to yourself, what if I had just done it differently? It's what everybody who made a mistake during a debate must have said, whether it was Ford or
when he said something about Eastern Europe or Mike Dukakis, when he said something about capital punishment, you go the rest of your life, you know, I've talked to these candidates and they say, you say, when did you stop thinking about? They say, what do you mean? You think we stopped thinking about that? So for Biden, I think in those first days, it must've been almost frozen to think about that. And then he had to,
consider, well, the press is coming after me, those editorials, the donors are coming after me. And then for a while he could say, well, it's just the elites. But I think when the congressman told him that their constituents, the people, in other words, were 90 to 10 saying he had to stand down, then he finally had to make that decision. It's a really tough decision. I think the difference between, you know, Doris references in terms of Mike Dukakis was a question that he had gotten about
uh, you know, if his family was violated through crime and, and what he would do, he was against the death penalty and what he would do. And he gave sort of a twisted and, you know, interesting answer that some say really lost him some support in the election. But those are having a bad debate where you misspeak is different than something that looks fundamentally unsettled.
He was failing to put sentences together, right? And corrects together. And, you know, they went into this thinking that you have Donald Trump who in every debate just kind of like yells and, and, you know, says all these things that are mistrue that, that are untrue and that Biden would look really smart going into the details of all of these things. Right. So they tried at one point to say that he, um,
overprepared. But he wasn't saying sentences. He was struggling. It was very obvious. They said he had a cold. It will be a very long time. We may never know what the actual truth is of what was happening up there, right? Because we've seen him since, and he's kind of back to old man Biden as opposed to what we saw in the debate stage. But I think something that continues to be fascinating to me is that when they were saying that it was the elites that wanted Biden out,
That was almost never true. The primary, the primary that wasn't had in polling that voters wanted something else. Voters one did not want a Trump v. Biden race and even Democrats didn't want president Biden. And then they, you know, the democratic, um,
apparatus as it as it is kind of came together and decided as they often do no we're going with the incumbent right it is rare that that especially nowadays that they would do something differently and then what really i think turned the tide for biden was kind of the way that he and his team strategized and worked this out that first week when it was kind of they hunkered down and did the normal biden world thing which they ignore everything they don't they don't want to be distracted
And then they focused on, he had that North Carolina rally. Then he had the one interview with George Stephanopoulos. And they really thought that that was going to move things. It didn't. But they must have known that that Stephanopoulos interview was unimpressive at best. I talked to quite a few people. They thought that he had done...
Like maybe like a C minus, which is like enough to pass, not enough to get you that you might still graduate. But, you know, you have to keep going. If you get the opinion, how the grades shake out on the other tests, you might still get out of this high school. And I think that is what they end up doing. And on Monday, when he sent this letter to Hill Democrats being super defiant, basically saying, get over it and get in line.
That is when he started to hear a lot of members of Congress being like, oh, we're not doing that. His Morning Joe interview was in that same vein. So he went to being defiant. And at one point he had to be humbled. And so it, and then he dropped out, right? And so these, the way that those decisions were made
also really impacted how much Democrats were upset. And when he said in that George Stephanopoulos interview, you know, it just matters if I just kind of give my darnedest. If we end up a fascist regime, as long as I gave it my all. Right, right. And Doris, I want to ask you,
So, very clearly, the Democratic Party lined up behind Biden and made sure that the primary season was not a real one. It was kind of a Potemkin village, and they put up one candidate. I think it was Dean Johnson who— Phillips. Dean Phillips, I'm sorry, who we've all decided is actually not a real person, but in fact, the picture on a hose sales ad. Yeah.
But Trump has utterly usurped the entire apparatus of the Republican Party. It really is in service to one man. He controls the platform. He writes it specifically. It takes out all the things that are traditionally doors. How...
How democratic are these parties? How much do they normally control what these apparatuses are? And how much of a say, you know, there's delegates, there's superdelegates, there's all these things that make it not a true democratic party, but at least with the Democrats, they are answering in many ways to their base, to their voters who are saying, this can't be, we can't have this guy.
Right. I mean, I think, you know, in the old days, the political bosses in the Democratic Party or the Republican Party had complete control at the convention. There weren't any primaries. You could just decide who it was you thought would be the best leader. And then they'd go forth in September. They would go from September to November. Sometimes I wish we could go back to that. Right. You know, the primary started in 1912 with Teddy Roosevelt wanting to beat Taft in his own party. There were no primaries before 1912? Yes.
No primaries before 1912. It was the people should rule. That was the argument. And Teddy Roosevelt wanted to beat his own friend and the current president, Taft. So he needed primaries because he had the popularity and Taft had the party delegates on him. So anyway, that splits the Republican Party in two. And that's the end of the primary. Nobody wants it anymore until it finally comes back in the 50s and the 60s.
And where it really becomes strong is in 1968 when Humphrey wins, despite having not gone into the primaries because he had the party delegates behind him and Lyndon Johnson. Then they decide, we need primaries. We need primaries. All right. We're going to be back in a bit. This show is supported by ZipRecruiter. If you're hiring for new roles, have you wondered how to find top talent before the competition gets to them? ZipRecruiter. And it's summertime, man. That's seasonal work. You're looking for your lifeguards, your ice cream parlor, your...
Mosquito swatters. I don't know if that's an actual job, but if it was...
Maybe only ZipRecruiter could find those types of people. You can try ZipRecruiter for free at ZipRecruiter.com slash ZipWeekly. Visit ZipRecruiter.com slash ZipWeekly. Set up your profile for free. You're going to have instant access to ZipRecruiter's powerful matching technology, which identifies the top talent. Check out ZipRecruiter's high-speed hiring tools. See why four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter
Get a quality candidate within the first day. Just go to this exclusive web address right now, ZipRecruiter.com slash ZipWeekly. Again, that's ZipRecruiter.com slash ZipWeekly. Build your business with ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire.
Okay, we're back. Picking up again, Doris. I mean, the interesting thing we were saying about Biden is that there were only 14 million people that voted for him. He kept touting the fact that I was voted for by the people, 14 million votes. 51 million people watched that debate. And that's a huge distinction because that debate once seen could not be unseen. But also those primaries were perfunctory. For Biden, they were perfunctory. But I want to talk about, Doris, this brings up an interesting point because
We view the way things are done now as though it's the way things have always been done. It's the status quo. It's conventional wisdom. This is the only way to do it. And Eugene, we'll get to you with this in a second because I think it informed some of the coverage. What I saw in the coverage was –
this is impossible. It's way too late to in any way ever switch a candidate. But the truth is that is an utterly modern phenomenon. And none of this ever even takes place. Generally, I think none of it even begins to take place until the convention and moving forward. This permanent campaign that we are in
is a modern phenomenon, is it not, Doris? Absolutely. No, in the old days where we produced Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, we didn't even start thinking about the convention until the convention came. Somebody would come out of the convention, then they would wait until Labor Day, and then the campaign would start right after Labor Day. And we had two months to decide who it was going to be. And somehow we may have done a better job then.
But I think the interesting thing is where the leaders came back, the Democratic leaders came back, the Biden situation was even before the debate, three out of four people thought he was too old. They were not happy with either choice of Trump or Biden, but somehow they didn't pay attention to that. They thought you had to take the...
the person who was there. He had done a good job as president, et cetera, et cetera. But then once that debate happened, those leaders are the ones that helped to make things change. Nancy Pelosi said the question is, was it an episode or a condition? They started making space for the fact that he might not be able to stay there. The pressure kept building up. They spoke up. So the leaders of the Democratic Party really helped to make this happen because, as I say, they were hearing from the people.
So finally, he had to make the decision as hard as it was for him. So in some ways, it was the base that decided this, not the elites. It was finally, it seemed the elites listened to the base. Listened to the people. That's exactly right. The base had been saying all along, I'm not coming. And you see this. Now, Eugene, this brings up an interesting point to me about the coverage. And I want to talk about...
As this thing was swinging, the sort of hot takes that come out of this, I'm just going to give you some of the examples of the whiplash that people were going through. So the articles were the Democrats who believe Biden should drop out are insane.
They are walking into a death trap. How they are, these are idiots that would say it's too late. It's too late for Biden to drop out. Biden is your only chance. You are idiots. Two days later, they are saying excitement around Kamala Harris are the Democrats' only chance. Thank God they finally pulled the plug on this death trap of a candidacy that was Joseph Biden.
In the same way, a week before it was Donald Trump is inevitable. The Republicans are coming out of this convention. J.D. Vance is a brilliant stroke. And now they're writing Trump is in trouble. He hates J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance is the worst. What do the reporters ever read their own articles? We don't.
do but this is this is one of the things john is that like the one of the many is that there is so much going on right now like we are on this podcast and who the hell knows what we're gonna come back to what world we're gonna come back to you think harris is out you never you never know you never know like the the the speed at which even like the last like
I don't know, 40, since June 27th, the speed at which this cycle has moved has been so wild. And I think what we try to do is give people kind of a sense of what's happening right now. I think often, not often, I think sometimes that we can, you know, we as well as other folks missed the mark, right? You have politicians who missed the mark. And I think, you know,
Being declarative about it had a lot to do with how Democrats were speaking about it, how behind closed doors they wanted him gone, but they didn't know how to do it. But also whether or not they had the actual wherewithal inside of them to do this, to get rid of this guy who everyone loves and really thought did a good job, but thought that he was going to make them lose and tear all of them down.
more importantly, did they understand the rules of how an open convention or a contested convention would actually work? And I think that's where a lot of the, like, they would be insane to do this came from because Democrats were like, how would we pick? It would be, we can't do that. 14 million people voted for this man. Like how, what does that look like? But I talked to Elaine Kamar, who is an expert. She's literally written books
She updates it every four years about the conventions and primary system for Democrats. Also the wife of Steny Hoyer, one of the members of Congress and a former leader in the House. And what she said is it is just like everyone just misunderstands what is actually possible, that the power, it's really like when you represent
you vote for a representative to Congress. They make decisions on your behalf when they can't go back to all of you and find out what you want to say, right? And so they send these delegates and the delegates have all the power. And so had President Biden stayed in
The delegates who are people who aren't just like, who aren't just saying they're going to vote for him, they're bound by him. No, they're self-selected by the campaign so that they're loyal. They're very loyal people to him. So it's like the operation of this was, I think, misunderstood by not just reporters. And, you know, I count myself, you said idiots. I'm going to count myself amongst the idiots. Not idiots. No, Eugene, you're here because you're not.
But like, it's, it's a, it's a good lesson for all of us about like how quick the news cycle moves. You know, the lesson won't be learned. I think I've learned it. How about that? No, but it's, I'm going to read you. Here's, here's the, I'm going to read you the run. Yeah. Forcing Biden out would have only one beneficiary, Trump. Right. At one point that made sense. Right. The Atlantic. Trump is preparing for a landslide win. New York times. This is how, you know, Trump smells victory. Uh,
July 15th, Donald Trump, man of destiny. July 18th, the Democrats aren't even trying. July 19th, Republicans emerge from convention confident in Trump talking about a blowout victory. July 22nd, pathetic Trump already trying to weasel out of debating Kamala Harris. Same day, why Trump suddenly thinks picking J.D. Vance was a mistake.
Same day, Kamala Harris's shocking fundraising numbers terrify Trump. Yeah. Like, when are we going to learn from the media? Doris, you know, we keep talking about the difference in the old days and the new days. There's no question back then the smoke-filled room was the elites choosing things. The reporters had a different relationship with the candidates. But what we have now is...
Chaos without context or perspective, hot takes that in many ways inflame the electorate rather than illuminate the electorate. How do we take a breath? What do we do in terms of we can't change the speed at which events take place, but can we change the manner by which we either cheer that on or cover it? Doris, what's your thought on that?
You know, that's a really good question. I mean, the problem is when breaking news happens, there's an emotion that goes with that breaking news, whether it was the assassination attempt or the Republican convention, or then the fact that Kamala Harris has done so well in the last couple of days, that that emotion becomes part of what the press covers. And it means that you're changing 90
degrees, as you're saying, or 180 degrees from where you were before. Maybe you can just sort of have a longer view. I mean, the weird thing about the old days was that the political bosses, yes, they may have been in smoke-filled rooms, but they were looking for a candidate who could bridge the divides in the party. So they weren't looking for an extreme on either side. The problem with the caucus system now and the primary system is often a candidate comes from the extreme.
and then has to work their way back to the middle in order to win at the other end. But it is more democratic. We can never go backwards sometimes. And I don't think people would even go back to the smoke-filled rooms, although I like some of those old political bosses in the old days. They had an intuition about who could possibly be the right person for that time. So when that first primary happened, the New York Times wrote an editorial saying it was so vicious, as I was saying, between Taft and Teddy. Taft called
called Teddy a dictator and Teddy called Taft a pinhead, that it was embarrassing. And if this is the first primary system, we hope it's the last. And they said, we must have a blush on everybody's cheeks. I know a pinhead is kind of a weird thing to call him. It's kind of a weird thing to call somebody. That meant he didn't have a lot of brains in that pinhead, right? I just find it interesting that these lions of American democracy and statesmanship
And we have no idea the day-to-day of how they were actually dealing with each other in the pinheads. But Eugene, I want to ask you, look, reporters are human beings. Yeah. And they're invested in this as well. But I want to ask you, do you think now that the ubiquity of the coverage incentivizes reporters to the hot take? You know, you're human beings. You're going to see what gets the clicks. And maybe that shapes the extremity of what goes on there. But
It's something that struck me during Donald Trump's trial is that in court, they just litigate the parameters of reality, the parameters of what happened. There are evidentiary standards and there are things that each side has to follow. Do you think that our journalists could maybe take some lesson from that idea of litigating
the parameters of our reality rather than the speculation towards what this all means. Because as we see, that is what's so temporal and ephemeral and doesn't really stand the test of time. But litigating what's going to happen next or how it's supposed to happen seems like a worthy endeavor. Yeah, I think you're right. I think the problem is that
people who engage in the media are asking for context, right? What does this mean? How does this compare to the past? What could happen? And I think there's a fine line between analysis and kind of prognosticating and guessing, right? You can say, you know,
Former President Donald Trump got shot. Republicans feel X, Y, and Z. Democrats have paused on fighting with Biden because of it. You know, Republicans feel like this is going to give them a straight shot to November, right? That is fully things that are true at the time and so therefore will remain true that that happened and that's how people felt about it. I think
The bigger problem is like the word, a lot of people use using the word journalist who are not journalists. A lot of people who are saying that reporters are not that. And so you're having folks that are, you know, like share are sharing full opinions and on, you know, whether it's cable news on podcasts in their own articles in op-eds, like,
the American people aren't really, they have so much going on, right? That they're not going to spend a lot of time to go Google if Joe Bob is an actual reporter at a news organization or if Joe Bob used to work for the Democratic Party at one point and now he's a consultant, right? But there are news organizations of great reputation that I just read those headlines from. Those aren't, that's not from like
Jimmy's blog. That's the New York Times, the Atlantic, Politico. These are reputable organizations. And do you know what, John? Yeah. I think that people should have, given what we've seen in the last four weeks where everything changed, a greater respect for the idea that fate could intervene at any times. And maybe that would prevent them from making whatever's happening now a projection for the future. I mean, for example, when Lyndon Johnson pulled out of the race, he
accolades everywhere. He was able, three days later, North Vietnam said they would come to the bargaining table. It was his happiest day of his life. People on the streets were cheering for him. And then the next day, as the plane was ready to go to Hawaii to bring people to start the negotiations, Martin Luther King was killed. And then the riots happened in the streets. Oh my goodness. That all happened within those-
That's what I'm saying. So that should give you a sense that faith can intervene. Things can change at any moment. And maybe even what you're feeling at the moment. Vance is a great choice. They're heading toward the, you don't have to say where we're going for the future. We should have more understanding that we don't know the future and the future keeps backing us up every single time as we've seen in this last four weeks. Who could have predicted the events of the last four weeks?
So I think they should feel able. And now Eugene knows this better than I am. I'm not a journalist. I know 50 years from now, if I come back, I'll tell you exactly what it was going to be and how it ended. But they can't know that at the time. Doris, did you just say, if I may, did you just make the prediction? You're coming back in 50 years? Yeah.
to put in context for the American public at that time? Well, look, if my dead presidents are alive, wouldn't that be terrific? No, that's a wonderful point. All right. We'll be back in a second. Okay. We're back. I wanted to ask, and Eugene, this is probably to you, what does happen now? What are the mechanics? No, I don't mean what happens now is like,
Kamala Harris, what are the mechanics now of this convention? Basically it, it is an open convention. I would assume unless they do a nominating vote prior to that, but what, what are the mechanics of what we're going to see next? Yeah. I mean, first, um,
The rules committees are meeting to kind of decide the rules right within within the party. It seems like those are not those are not set prior. That's that's that close to it. Yeah, you can change it. And then they and then often they vote on the rules like as a full delegation.
Right. At the conventions. And so- Who are the rules committee made up of? Are they delegates? They are. Some of them are delegates, but a lot of them are like the, a lot of names of them are people that folks will recognize as people who are in democratic politics. They are members of different types of constituencies. Okay. They are-
governors, they're governors, they're members. And so they're senators. Some of them are local and state senators and members of the House assemblies. And so they will kind of get together and they will decide what they're doing. We've got a draft proposal. And essentially what it says is we're going to vote and we're going to still have to hold a virtual roll call vote. And the reason is
They are certain that this kind of Ohio rule, that if you don't have the name selected, if your person is not nominated, they can't make it on the ballot. Ohio changed the law. Ohio said this law no longer matters. We can move on.
The Democrats have chosen to ignore that. How is it that a state could say you need the name of your nominee before you would get your nominating convention? That doesn't seem to make any sense. And so they made this rule before, it seems before the convention was like fully set. And so that is where it kind of everyone woke up and they're like, wait a second.
"We have to figure something out here." So they were gonna do this with President Biden. There was a conversation about maybe we don't need to do it with Harris. Ohio says they're good to go, but they don't trust the Republicans in Ohio at their word. And so they're gonna continue to do that. And so it's by all intents and purposes, Vice President Harris is the presumptive nominee. We're not using that word because they've committed to her, they're not pledged to her. So, again, knowing that fate can intervene doors,
they could get on that roll call vote and say like, "John Stewart is gonna get it, let's go." - What? - It's you, John. - Oh my God, I had no idea. - Breaking news, congratulations. - I promised myself I wouldn't cry. - There's a crown girl coming your way. - Eugene, thank you so much. - You're welcome. President Stewart. - I accept.
And I'm only running in Ohio. I accept. Only in Ohio. And so that part will happen early. That also means Vice President Harris has to pick a running mate before then because the way that the proposal and the draft was is that the speed that she actually has to do that. Ohio is going to lead the Democrats around by the nose rather than trusting the process that they have in place for choosing it in a measured fashion.
way, it doesn't make any sense. Democrats don't want to roll the dice here is what it is. They don't want to roll the dice at Ohio. And maybe this is where we end up. And this is where we end. And I thank you both for being here. But I want to talk about this very quickly.
- We are such a convoluted mess when it comes to our election systems, whether it's through the financial shenanigans of super PACs and all the loopholes that exist and corporations are people and money is free speech
And the 14 or $15 billion that we're going to spend on this election. And we don't know where the dark money is. So from the financing to the rules, to the ubiquity, to the fact that it doesn't ever end, which means we are always at each other's throats and never have time for makeup, electoral sex in the country. Like we're just fighting at all times. Like,
We are a mess. And one of the biggest things I heard. But you know what, John? Yes, ma'am.
I was going to say, we created these problems. We can solve these problems. We can change things. We can have a political revolution. We can make it so that money is not in politics. We can do these things. I mean, why are the best people not running for public office now? Because they know they're going to have to spend their time raising money, tons and tons of money. They know their private lives are going to be exposed. They don't think that they're going to be able to get very much done because the two parties have loggerheads. We created these problems by the system we created.
We can change that system. You know, they talked about we can't make a change in our candidate, even given this most extreme and urgent new information that we've received during a debate because we don't have enough time. Meanwhile, France did their they did two elections in six weeks. England did it in eight weeks. And and those candidates.
Those systems can be applied here. We have an electoral industrial complex that needs to be broken up. It is monopolistic and FTC needs to get involved. Eugene, what say you, sir? I think you're right. As someone who's in D.C. a lot, and I'm not going to prognosticate, but I have not seen enough of –
the kind of excitement from you and Doris about these kinds of things big enough to see changes actually happen. I can be pretty cynical on some of the political things because, you know, people will say one thing behind closed doors. I'm pointing to my door. You can't see it. One thing behind closed doors and then a completely different thing like to your face. And you know that the thing, both of those things happen. So our political incentive structure is off.
first of all. And so people don't always speak the things that they feel. Many of them do want these kinds of changes. Many of them want money out of politics. There are a lot of Republicans who are speaking this language right now, which is really interesting. It used to be more of a democratic message. And so there's a world in which they do come together. That world has to, and this could be one of those moments where maybe the parties are looking around
Depending on what happens in November, because the American people want—
area getting a senator or getting, you know, they're just never going to go for that type of sharing. But I think solving the time problem solves the money problem. And it solves the hatred in the, it helps to solve the hatred in the whole country, right? Like, you know, like the amount of attacks that we all receive,
come from this, like the speed, the length of time at which we're hitting each other. There's the attack ads, everyone's saying this person's the worst person that's ever lived. - It's a constant. - Exactly. - It's a constant. - There's a lot of things that if we fix this one thing could work better in this country. I think the country might be better off for it. - Doris. - So let us three pledge. Let's pledge that we're gonna argue about this. I mean, just think of how much better our lives would be if we only had to focus on these presidential elections.
over a six-week period or a 10-week period. But we just have to believe that we can do it. I mean, we've made bigger changes in our lives and our political lives over time. We ended segregation. We allowed more people to vote that didn't vote. Women couldn't vote for so long, and Black people couldn't vote for so long. We've made those changes. We have to change the system as it is now. You've gotten me really riled up right now. Me too. I've been living for another 50 years. I want to be part of it. I'm so riled up. Yeah.
I know that you and Eugene are riled up and we can do this. - And we have the technology. This is a road and the media cycle that like, if in years ago, like if this was the sixties or even if it was the 1800s and people had to get on their horse and buggy and go around and introduce themselves to all the Americans, that would be much more difficult. These people can introduce themselves
at the drop of a hat. You could have the amount of ads, the amount of Twitter, the amount of information we can get about these people in a short amount of time. Two to three months is almost too long. People will already be sick of it. You'll already be in that cycle of,
I'm tired of this person. I want the next person. The idea that this vetting process is somehow getting us closer to more competent and better leadership is nonsense and insane. And we have created an electoral campaign system that does the...
opposite of what it is intended to do, which is we've created a system so burdensome, so onerous, so expensive, so hate-filled that all it does is drag the worst of us to the highest positions in leadership. And I say it changes now, and I'm proud to announce my co-chairs of Eugene Daniels and Doris Kearns Goodwin, and we're going to make this happen. And I didn't even curse once during that entire speech. Very good. Very good.
You guys are the best. Thank you for joining us today and really helpful and really informative. Doris Kearns Goodwin, it's always an honor to see you and a delight. I don't see you enough. And Eugene Daniels, so nice to meet you. Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, Pulitzer Prize winning author, most recent book, An Unfinished Love Story, Personal History of the 60s. Eugene Daniels, Politico White House correspondent, Playbook co-author. Thank you both so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. Thank you. Thank you.
Man, that was terrible for Rob on sound and or Nicole. Man, I'm fired up now. It really there was an epiphany in the middle of it that it's not about the the money follows the time because the elections are never ending. The money hose is unceasing.
If we change the time, we change the money. We change the atmosphere. We change the corrosive and eroding effects that it has on our souls. We shorten the time. We have to endure this nonsense. That is so true. It really gave me hope because when I think about tackling the money in politics issue, it seems insurmountable. But addressing the time is a secret way in.
I think that's right. It's a backdoor hack. We call it a life hack on the TikTok world.
Yes. John, are you on TikTok? I'm in my life hack era. I'm not on TikTok, but Maggie makes me know. Yeah. Kamala is brat. Doris is brat. Doris is brat. And I didn't know what that was, but I'm assuming it's something. How are we doing otherwise? I know we got some viewer questions or
Comments? What are we dealing with this week? We put out a call asking for people to send in some questions for you. So we have some for you. Come at me, bro. Come at me, bro. We have someone who is starting college and their roommates are random. And they want to know how they can avoid opinion slash political conflict in a tight dorm room.
Oh, you're not supposed to. That's the whole point of a dorm room. The whole point of a dorm room is, and then you got to read like Catcher in the Rye and then like just get all fucked up and high and talk about it till six in the morning. The whole point of the college dorm room is not to avoid that, but to learn to navigate your way through it with this person that is really only in there because you guys are
wake up around the same time. I think that's pretty much how college roommates are now selected is what time do you wake up and are you a complete fucking pig? So that's the gradation. But I would suggest you are in close quarters. There is no better. You are now in
The dojo. You are in the conversation and topic dojo. A 10 by 12 room, two twin beds with plastic covering on it. You haven't slept on shit like that ever. And this is boot camp.
for learning how to get along with another person that you don't. I think they should switch roommates every six weeks and throw you into a whole other scenario of political and sociological tumult. And it should always end with like 6.30 in the morning being like, in theory, socialism does sound good, but in practice, it just never worked. That's what I, don't avoid it.
Dive in, head first, feet first, and invest in a durable bong. Or is that, that's probably old school advice because now the kids probably smoke in those, you know, the, whatever those are. Vapes? Vapes. Yeah. Yeah. Done. Settled. All right. Next question. And this is a quote. Oh my God, babe, you got to drop your skincare routine.
Oh, well, here's my routine. Don't do anything for 61 years and let the chips fall where they may. Terrible, terrible. Well, so far, I think we've done an excellent job at responding to viewers' concerns. Do you want another one? You give me one more and then we'll move it on. All right, John. Here we go. Come on. I need advice on how to end a relationship. That.
It's so interesting to me. You know, we're doing a podcast about social and political issues and everything we're getting so far is like my lifestyle blog. I think they want me to be a get ready with me influencer. Yeah. Talk about breakups and skincare. I think I've been doing the wrong show forever. That's the next podcast. The breakup thing is be creative. Nobody wants, nobody wants just a straight thing.
Have them come in a room and go, oh, it's so bright in here. And then lower the blinds and on it is written, get the fuck out. Get out of my house. And then they're going to be like, oh shit, that hurts. Props to you for the creative endeavor in the way that you did it. It's like a reverse compo. That's our show.
Solid show. Boy, did I love Doris. Very nice to meet you, Gene. As always, I want to thank lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mimetevic, video editor and engineer Rob Vitola, audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, our researcher and associate producer Jillian Spirit, executive producers Chris McShane, Katie Gray. You guys are killing it.
Great topics, great research, great information. Thank you all so much. And that's it for us. We'll see you all next time on The Weekly Show. Bye-bye. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.
A mountain of movies awaits on Paramount+. That means a mountain of heart-pounding action with blockbusters like Top Gun: Maverick and Transformers: Rise of the Beasts. Let them come. A mountain of jump scares with thrillers like Scream 6 and A Quiet Place Part 2. Run. And a mountain of smiles with family favorites like Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and If. What if I told you imaginary friends?
are real. Discover something new every week. A mountain of movies awaits on Paramount Plus. Now streaming. Paramount Podcasts.
