Will Chris Christie Back Biden?

The best cars for the money are Hondas. Save big with 0% financing.

The 25 Accord Civic Passport and Odyssey have been named the best cars for the money by U.S. News and World Report.

Save thousands with 0%, like the 24 Prologue with 0 APR.

To drive the best, ask anyone who owns a Honda and search your local Honda dealer.

See dealer for financing details. Financing on credit approval.
Offer ends 4-30- View U.S. News Best Cars at cars.usnews.com.
This podcast is supported by Comedy Central's Emmy Award winning series, The Daily Show. Jon Stewart and The Daily Show news team are covering every minute of every hour of President Trump's second first 100 days in office.
With brand new episodes every weeknight from the lowest lows to

the highest lows and everything in between they'll be there to break it all down comedy central's the

daily show new tonight at 11 on comedy central and streaming next day on paramount plus welcome to pod save america i'm john lovett and i'm adisi dumisi good to see you thanks for being here good to be here man live and in person live and in person today's show, Democrats win back George Sanchez's seat on Long Island. The House impeaches Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas for his role in a border crisis they refuse to solve.
Joe Biden gets on TikTok and just in time for Valentine's Day. Never Trump heartthrob.
Chris Christie stops by the show to play fuck, marry, kill with Trump, Biden, Ronald Reagan. Good luck with that.
But first first in an eight point victory that exceeded polling showing a tighter race democrat tom swazi beat republican mozzie pill up in a special election to replace billionaire astronaut george santos in new york's third district my childhood district and uh philip is a ethiopian like me yeah oh really yeah yeah that's not me. That's not you.
The race boiled down to a fight over immigration policy and abortion access, and Democrats are holding Swazi up as an example of how to parry attacks over the migrant crisis. This felt like a tight race, and then it wasn't.
What do you think went into the win here? Yeah, I think a couple things. First, candidates matter.
Philip, God bless my Ethiopian sister, but not a particularly good candidate. Spent the whole race running away from the press.
Swazi, a former congressman, a former candidate for governor, former county exec. In a short, compressed special election, it's actually hard to rebrand folks.
And he was a good candidate for the race. I think the other thing is campaigns actually can make a difference.
Like if this race had been the day that Santos was expelled, I'm not sure it would have been as big of a gap. But, you know, Democrats poured a lot of time, energy, money into this 7 million by HMP, House Majority PAC, 4 million I saw this morning from the DCCC, door knocking from unions and LCV and other partners.
And so, you know, you put a good candidate together with an actual campaign that's communicating with voters and suddenly you can move the numbers on the margins and get what, you know, six, seven points is like a blowout in a competitive house district. Yeah, I want to spend time on what they did right, but I want to talk for a second just about what the Republican did wrong because there was a lot of criticism that they weren't going to events, they weren't answering questions.
But one of the challenges, they were trying to avoid abortion-related questions. And we went through a midterm in which Democrats weren't able to hold the House because we lost in places like New York and California where abortion didn't feel as salient.
Has that changed as Republicans have embraced an abortion ban? Yeah, I think the answer is yes. There's no doubt in my mind that now we are, what, two years almost removed from Dobbs.
It is as salient an issue today as it was then. I think it's going to continue into the fall.
I didn't think that was going to be the case, if I'm going to be honest, in the fall or summer of 2022. But I think continuing to hit Republicans over the head with the abortion issue is going to be a strategy that House, Senate, presidential, every campaign takes going into the fall.
It is still as salient as ever. And you got to do it both in paid media, earned media, you name it.
It's top of the list, and it's going to continue to be top of the list. And I think the D-Trip, the HMPs of the world, the campaign, Swazi himself did it and went on the offense, right? That's the other thing.
You got to set the terms of the debate. If you're playing poker, you want to be the guy going all in, not the guy put to a tough decision.
And Democrats need to do more of that. I think the Swazi campaign did that pretty effectively.
So let's talk about where Democrats did feel like they were a little bit on defense, which was on immigration. Swazi openly characterized the immigration situation at the border as a crisis.
He talked about migrants streaming across the border. Republicans attacked him for saying two years ago that he, quote, kicked ICE out of Nassau County.
That's referring to immigration and customs enforcement. Here's a clip of an ad that Swazi ran in response.
You've been hearing a lot of nonsense blaming Tom Swazi

for the migrant problem. Really? As the left pushes to abolish ICE, here now is one of the

few Democrats who voted to support this vital agency. ICE is an important government agency.

They have an important job to do in this country, securing our border. I support strong border

security. Tom Swazi will work with both parties to close illegal immigration routes, but open

paths to citizenship for those who follow the rules. And anything else you might hear is garbage.
I'm Tom Swasey, and I approve this message. It's a very Long Island.
It's very Long Island. It's very Long Island.
The accents, the man on the street accents really just sort of like, shove me into a locker, what do you, what was your take on his messaging around immigration? Yeah, look, I think it is a, it is a tricky issue for Democrats. I don't think there's any doubt about it.
It is, it remains to the top of the list of voter concerns, even in a place like New York that is pretty far away from the border. Yeah.
I would, whether you like it or not. And campaigns are

often, we want to fight them in one place, but the voters tell us what they want campaigns to talk about. And I think it goes back to what I just said.
Go on the offense. Say what you want to say before you're being put in a position to respond to what the other candidates have to say.
And Swazi not only took a, I would say, more moderate position on immigration and paid communications, but he actually attacked

Philip for

opposing the deal in Congress and

basically... not only took a, I would say, more moderate position on immigration and paid communications, but he actually attacked Philip for opposing the deal in Congress and basically doing Trump's bidding in terms of killing what I think voters and all of us alike want to see, which is Congress actually to do something about this.
So go on the offense, talk about it in the way you want to talk about it, because it's not like you're going to be able to avoid it. The voters are going to make you do it.
And certainly the Republicans are going to make you do it. So say what you want to say instead of waiting.
Yeah, I was also a little bit surprised to see in the very limited real estate you have to do any kind of message on immigration. There was still space.
It was still important to include a positive pro-immigration message in there. There's still a case for making sure people can come if they follow the rules.
Like there is still, I think. There is, yeah.
That's what the voters are. Yeah.
Right? The voters aren't, maybe the mega Republican base is in one place, right? But they're not a majority of the electorate. Democrats, moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, to the extent they exist in the electorate, if not in Congress, independents, they want Congress to do something that is fair to the people who are here.
They want to solve DACA. They want to certainly tighten up border security.
There's room for a deal. The Congress is apparently trying to make a deal, right? Which is crazy.
You got 70 senators voting for a deal a couple of days ago on this. It's really the MAGA base that is pulling the Republicans to the right.
And we have to take advantage of that by kind of seizing that middle. So Democrats outperformed the polling.
We've done well in these off cycle elections. It seems like there's been a kind of flip in the script where Democrats now do better in some of these low turnout elections.
At the same time, it does give us some glimmer of hope for our ability to win in some of these close New York districts. new york forest currently held by republic he won by four percent the 17th uh lawler won by 0.64 that's where mondair is running the 18th point point three percent uh the 22nd uh 0.98 the 19th 1.6 so there's a ton of really really close races here how much of a lesson can you learn from what just happened well i, I will say, and I would have said this if the Republicans won on Tuesday as well, you can't read too much into a special election.
We all have to just take a breath, right? It's February. There was a snowstorm on Long Island.
Who knows what's going to be happening in November? With that said, I do think it shows, like I said to start, campaigns matter. matter, candidate quality matters.
We saw this in 2022, right? If the, if the Republicans in all these primaries nominate right-wing lunatics, it creates a lot of space for us. And I think they're going to, it creates a lot of space for us on the left and Democrats to, to win these elections.
Right. And, uh, uh, Swazi obviously took, took advantage of that.
I think you're going to see that in New York. You're going to see that in California.
We can basically, not basically, we can take back the House basically just winning California and New York Republican-held swing districts. So it's interesting because that's a map that's totally divorced from the Senate map and from the presidential map, but it's where this thing I think is going to be won or lost, and the House might be our best know, best chance to pick up a chamber.
And, uh, so let's talk about what's actually happening in the house where Republicans, I don't think are really helping themselves. Uh, last night, Republicans succeeded in impeaching Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of Homeland security, allegedly for not following, uh, the country's immigration laws.
The resolution passed by a single vote after majority leader, Steve Scalise arrived back at the Capitol from cancer treatment. Mayorkas becomes the first cabinet official to be impeached since 1876, the mutton chops era.
It would need two thirds, obviously, in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. Democrats in the Senate just figuring how quickly they can get rid of this thing.
Only three Republicans voted no. Mike Gallagher, Ken Buck, Tom McClintock.

Gallagher isn't running again. Now, at the same time, just underscore the politics here.
A blueprint poll found that when voters are presented with a generic ballot, Democrats lead by three points. But when presented with a Democrat who supports the bipartisan border deal versus a Republican who supports impeaching Mayorkas, the Democrat leads by 13 points.
Why were only three Republicans able to vote in a way that is just good politics? Yeah. They are terrified of Donald Trump.
The answer is they are terrified of Donald Trump. And I think when we were in San Jose, the last time I was on the show, I said this, the Republican party is the party of Donald Trump and Megan now.
It just is. If 2144 Republicans are going to vote for a political stunt that they know has no future and is frankly a terrible precedent for the United States, just because basically Donald Trump told them to do it, that's where we are, right? The reason why Republicans won't vote for this is because they're scared that Donald Trump is going to bash them over the head.
They're going to lose in a primary. They're going to have the MAGA base turn against them.
They're more scared of that than what hopefully is going to happen in November, which is that they lose the general election against a Democrat. And obviously in some of these Republican districts, that's not a possibility.
But these swing district Republicans who are voting to impeach Mayorkas, they're putting themselves in danger, but they're showing that they're wholly owned subsidiaries of Donald Trump. Is this in any way like a sop to the base to Trump? Because they know that as bad as the politics on Mayorkas are, the politics on impeaching Biden would be that much worse? Yeah, I think it is a bit of a cop out on the Biden impeachment stuff, which, you know, it's like, okay, well, I want steak for dinner, but instead I'll get, you know, beyond meat or something, with all due respect to the vegans out there or vegetarians.
But yeah, I think it's a cop-out, right? But it also – I don't think it's going to play well, right? It's not going to play well with swing voters who understand that impeachment is something you use for extraordinary circumstances. And this is a policy disagreement, right? Sure, you might disagree with somebody, but you don't impeach them because you think they're running bad policy.
You impeach them for high crimes and misdemeanors. And voters are smarter than we give them credit for.
Oftentimes, I think all the time. And these folks are, again, they're more scared of the right base than they are of losing in a general election.
That should play to our benefit in November. So it's very hard to change, I think, a long-held perception, one of which is Republicans are just tougher on the border and Democrats aren't.
That's what we see in polls. When people are concerned about the borders, they support Republican policies over Democratic policies.
They are more likely to trust a Republican over a Democrat. Is their bumbling in the last couple of weeks bad enough to change that dynamic? Or can it turn an advantage into a disadvantage, or is it only bad enough to change that dynamic or it will, or will it, can it turn an advantage into a disadvantage or is it only bad enough to mute an advantage? That's a really good question.
I think, I think playing to a draw is probably, it's good, right? Yeah, yeah. And obviously an advantage is better, but playing to a draw on this is good.
You know, Republicans have traditionally had an advantage on this issue and I I think they just lit that on fire with what they've done this week, not just the Mayorkas thing, but the, now the house, not, um, even taking up this border deal that the Senate passed in a massively bipartisan way. And so they are showing pretty clearly that they just want immigration as an issue.
They want the issue. They don't want to solve it.
And I actually think from a message perspective going forward for house candidates, for Senate candidates, for president Biden, that works with voters. Um, it worked in 2020 that Biden is the one who's actually going to bring people together, solve, um, you know, try to solve problems.
He's proven that over the course of the last three years. And once again, 70 senators voted for something.
That's a fucking miracle in 2024. And, and yet, uh, you know, Matt Gaetz and his merry band of idiots in the House are going to stop something that majority of senators and majority of Americans agree with.
It will hurt. I think it will hurt if we push that message publicly come the fall campaign.
Yeah. So Chris Murphy, I think, has a lot of righteous indignation right now, in part because he spent a lot of time trying to figure out this border deal.
And so the Senate passes a foreign aid bill that has money for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, humanitarian assistance for Gaza. This is the version that strips out the border security deal that Murphy and Lankford made.
It goes over to the House. Now, House Republicans said they won't vote for a Ukraine bill unless there's a border bill.
Then Trump said, don't do that. I want the border chaos.
They said, OK, we won't pass the border deal. They strip out the border deal.
Now, Mike Johnson says, well, we can't pass the Ukraine bill without a border deal. So House Republicans have now basically set up a situation where they've impeached Mayorkas over a crisis they will refuse to solve.

There's a majority of Democrats and Republicans that would like to vote for Ukraine aid, Israel

aid, Taiwan aid.

He has an even slimmer majority than ever before, right?

He just lost-

Yeah, one fewer as of Tuesday.

As of Tuesday.

George Santos just posted minus one.

The next time he's going to have a hope of filling a seat is in May when McCarthy's seat could be filled by Republican. What happens? Smarter minds than I are going to have to figure that out.
I think, look, I've never been Speaker of the House. I don't want the job.
Which is frankly a shame. I know.
Exactly. If you want to elect me next January, guys.
You don't have to be a member of the House. No, please elect Hakeem Jeffries.
But when you only have a four-seat majority, two-seat majority, I think, as it is right now, or you can only lose two votes, everybody matters, right? And that's the problem that, you know, if I'm giving Johnson the benefit of the doubt that he has to deal with is that Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene can torpedo literally anything that might come to the floor of the House. And they've proven themselves willing to do that.
And so he's in a pickle. If this thing came to the floor, it would pass.
I truly believe that. It would lose some votes on the left.
It would lose some votes on the right. It would pass in the middle.
The question is, will he be willing to take the political hit, I think, from the right, he being Johnson, to bring it up? I don't know with a guy. I don't know if he's willing to do it.
I think the honeymoon period might be over in the post-McCarthy era, and we might be stuck in this position where a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, the president's willing to sign it, the majority of American people want to do it, and the Gateses and Taylor Greens of the world stop us from having a real solution to a real problem. Yeah.
I wonder too, it's the, um, the fact that only three Republicans were able to buck voting for the impeachment does not bode well for like a discharge position, which would basically what that would mean is if there is a majority of people in the house that want to pass a, uh, bipartisan aid bill for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, they can if everyone signs a letter. Democrats have all, 213 Democrats have already signed that kind of a letter.
A few would probably drop off because they don't believe in unconditional aid for Israel. But nonetheless, so you need a dozen or so Republicans to say, I'm willing to do this, but none of them want to go first.
Yeah, I think it's a collective action problem. As always.
As always, right? No one wants to be that first Republican. If you can get a group of whatever, I can't do the math off the top of my head, but 12, 15, whatever it'll be once you subtract the Democrats, it would drop off maybe.
But I think the odds are low. I think it ultimately is going to be a Speaker Johnson question and whether or not he wants to govern or whether or not he wants to be a tool of Donald Trump.
And I think I know where this is at. It is just so galling that they would not like that.
So there are Republicans or establishment foreign policy types that just want to do the Ukraine aid because they understand and believe in the importance of supporting Ukraine in that war. And that they have, they all say that in their kind of closed door briefings that Ukraine could lose and the consequences would be catastrophic.
But they were also open and willing to do the border deal until Trump tried to squash it. Then because the border piece of it got killed, they did just the aid.
And then Attorney General of Texas Ken Paxton posts, unbelievable that John Cornyn would stay up all night to defend other countries' borders, but not America. That's what Ken Paxton posts on X.
Now, Cornyn replies, Ken, your criminal defense lawyers are calling to suggest you spend less time pushing Russian propaganda and more time defending longstanding felony charges against you in Houston, as well as ongoing federal grand jury proceedings in San Antonio that will probably result in further criminal charges. Spicy in the Texas Republican Party.
Who knew? I love it. Yeah, me too.
I love it. Ken Paxton is a fucking prick.
Yeah. And it he deserves it also john cornyn fucking deserves it because he went along with stripping out the border deal that they demanded so there you go they're making misstep after misstep i think and it's putting them in a to your original question here they are giving up an issue that they had an advantage on um and they're doing it in the most clumsy dumb way possible the question can we take advantage of it? Politically speaking, right? Well, I think the first question is, can we actually pass something? Because I do think from a messaging perspective, it would be fantastic for Democrats to be able to go out there and say, we did something about this, or we tried to do something about this.
Good for Biden, good for Senate and House Democrats to do that. But in the event that what I think will happen happens, they have given us all the tools.
They have given us the hammer, they have given us the nail. We just have to pound it in here.
And it's clear that there's a divide within their own party between the sort of traditionalists and the MAGA folks on this particular issue, and we need to exploit it. Yeah.
It's also, you know, Washington Post found that every Ukraine aid vote has gotten at least 73% support in the House. So every vote has been bipartisan.
Why? Because when even though the Republican base and actually the country is, I think, less behind foreign military support in general than I think Republicans, Democrats in Washington are, regardless, a majority understands the stakes and that they're not just about pleasing Donald Trump or winning over the base. There's a real conflict with real consequences, very dangerous, that they all understand they have a role in supporting our ally.
And the fact that we're in a place where Mike Johnson has basically boxed him in to the point where he can't do what 73% of the House thinks is essential for national security, despite the politics. And I would guess a majority or close to it of his own caucus, right? For sure.
For sure. Obviously the majority of the democratic caucus.
Um, I mean, the majority of the Republicans would absolutely vote for this if it was an anonymous vote. Oh, they may be afraid of their bait.
Yeah. Unquestionably.
Afraid of the base on the floor. Unquestionably.
And yeah, it's, uh mean, it's sad. It's a sad commentary on the Republican Party, and on the state of Congress, as it were.
But it's a political opportunity, right? And I am a political practitioner. Yeah, yeah.
What I think of- That's exactly what you are. Yeah, it's true.
What I think of first is how do we use this to win the election so that we have more Democrats in Congress so that Hakeem Jeffries is the speaker. So Chuck Schumer stays the Senate majority leader.
So Joe Biden stays the president. So we might actually, you know, I would rather Hakeem Jeffries be sitting there with him.
But instead of feeling paralyzed, our job now is to pull what we've got and see what we can make happen. Here at Assembly Required, we will continue to face each executive order, legislative policy, and news cycle, no matter how terrifying or absurd, by asking, what can we do to learn more about what's happening? What can we do to solve problems, however small? And how can we find the kind of hope that can sustain our work in difficult times? Listen to new episodes of Assembly Required every Thursday on Amazon Music.
So speaking of crass political concerns, Trump is asserting his control, not just over the House, but over the Republican Party at large. In a statement on Monday night, Trump announced that he is endorsing his very talented daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, to serve as RNC co-chair.
Trump also endorsed his friend, the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, and announced that one of his top campaign advisors will become the RNC's chief operating officer. Nikki Haley said she thinks Trump is trying to swing the election by taking over the party apparatus, which is just I can't believe she'd think that.
Yeah, let's hear the clip. He's named who's going to be the new RNC chair.
His daughter in law will be the co-chair. And he is making his campaign manager the officer that runs the party.
Think about what's happening right now. Is that how you're going to try and take an election? I mean, yes.
Oh, yes. Yes.
The answer is yes. No, no.
We like this. This is good.
Wow. Laura Trump.
She must have really wowed him in the interview. Yeah.
I mean, again, this is the guy who put his daughter and son-in-law in the West Wing. So we can't really, I mean, this is at least down the street a little bit.
But I mean, do you expect any more from Donald Trump? No. Right.
The RNC, by the time election day comes around, is just going to be another account for him to pay his legal bills. And that's what he sees.
And is this actually rigging the election? No. Like this is – it's another Trump – evidence of Trump just taking over the party literally, right?

Yeah.

Putting his family member who's never been involved in Republican politics in a position of considerable power. Yeah, he likes putting his name.
I mean, his name is already all over this place. He likes putting his name on the outside.
Yeah, he might just put like a big Trump sign on the RNC building after he's the would not be, would be par for the course for the guy. Is there any actual practical implications of this? So Ronna, Ronna, nay, Romney, McDaniel, it looks like she's going to step down after South Carolina.
Latest polls showed Trump beating Nikki Haley in South Carolina by 35 points. He already is in control of the party, right? Is there anything that would change after this sort of keys? No, I don't think so at all.
Romney McDaniel was a tool of Trump, certainly in 2020. It's just going to be a new tool for Trump to use and a new bank account to pay his legal bills, like I said before.
That is what the RNC will be come the general election. And so it doesn't really matter.
And let's be fair, like the nominee of the party should have control over who the chair of the party is in the presidential cycle. Joe Biden helped put Jamie Harrison there.
Like it is what it is. So it, you know, the bad part here is it's just another evidence of nepotism and Trump treating politics like a family business and not like a government to help

regular people.

But it's not going to materially affect the election at all.

And I think it's pretty standard politics to install your person at the head of the

party.

So before we let you go, there was John and Tommy and I, we sort of talked a bit through

the Democratic freakout after this, her report that kind of made aspersions about Joe Biden and his age and his memory. First of all, just sort of curious what you think the Biden campaign should be doing strategy wise to fight back against this narrative here.
Yeah, I think they're doing a lot of it now or they're starting to do a lot of it now that the campaign is switching into a new mode. Trump is the, if he's not the actual presumptive nominee, everybody kind of knows he's going to be there.
The campaign has been messaging that more. And you switch into general election mode and that means putting the president out there.
We've seen him go to North Carolina, sit down for dinner with families, visit with folks who had their student loans forgiven, et cetera, et cetera, and be in these environments where you can see him be president and be a presidential candidate in real time. I think that is what people want to see.
And he's up to the job. I believe he's up to the job.
But voters need to believe it, right? And the way they believe it is by seeing him do the job and do the job of campaigning as well, which we expect from a presidential candidate, even if he's the incumbent. So ultimately, it's up to the president to perform.
I have every confidence he will perform. Got to put him out there to perform.
And we'll see more, I think, obviously. We got the State of the Union coming up next month.
You got the convention after that. You've got nine months of a campaign in front of us.
The more we see him, the more we'll understand. Sure, the number might be high in his age, but the question isn't actually just about the number.
It's about fitness. Is he fit for the job? And he is fit for the job and he will prove it over the course of the campaign.
Yeah. I mean, the other number that's high is the number of people who say that they have a very serious concern up to saying they believe he is not up to the job.
And we can blame the media for this, whatever, but they're seeing something with their own eyes and coming to a conclusion. I want to believe that that is surmountable, that Biden being out there can

address this issue. How will we know before November 6th that Joe Biden has successfully

shown people that while they may not stop having a concern about age, that it is a surmountable concern compared to the insurmountable concerns about Donald Trump's

chaos and fitness? I don't know how we'll know. I mean, I think we'll know on November 6th when

we see the votes come in, because I do think it is a threshold issue in the election. But I guess

my point is, it is not an insurmountable one. And actually, the solution is pretty clear, which is

show that you're up to the job. And he does that.
You think about the January 6th speech,

Thank you. not an insurmountable one.
And actually the solution is pretty clear, which is show that you're up to the job. And he does that.
You think about the January 6th speech, the speech after October 7th, last year's State of the Union, which I think was one of his best moments of his entire presidency and performance, the debates obviously in 2020. When the debates in 2020 in the primaries when he was up and on his last legs and politically speaking and performed and took over the primary in a few days.
So when the chips are down and where things look bad, Joe Biden tends to perform, right? And I think the question is, will he do it, right? That's the political question right now. I believe he will, but we'll know when he does it, right? And there will be plenty of opportunities between, you know, February 14th and November 6th for him to show that to the American public.
There'll also be paid advertising. There will be an entire campaign, just thinking back to our original conversation about New York 3 and Swazi, like things change over the course of the campaign and things, you know, and nine months is an eternity, right? So there'll be advertising, there'll be things we can can't expect there'll be things we can't expect and he will have to prove in the crucible of a campaign that he is up to the job but i think he will do it and i think we'll know it because he'll win the election are they so they launched a tiktok during the super bowl yeah is that good is that helpful i think so i think so i think it's a tough one right? I think we also talked about this in San Jose with respect to Facebook and X even.
These platforms that are problematic in certain ways, right? TikTok in a different way from a national security perspective. But Democrats, I think, we talk a lot about having a message problem, which sure we do.
There are things we can do better. There are things specific candidates can do better, et cetera.
But I actually think we have more of a message delivery problem, which is that the media environment is so fragmented now that it's just hard to reach people. And it used to be the nightly news and three old white guys giving the whole country their political news and the- It should be three younger white guys doing a podcast.
Yeah, exactly. Exactly.
But now it's just, it's fractured, right? It's really hard to get to people, young people in particular, but it's true of older people as well. And I think using TikTok as a medium to communicate with people, using X, using Facebook, et cetera, it's just required.
Whether you like it or not, it's a required part of actually reaching people where they are. And if you are running for for president and you're not there you're missing an entire swath of people and where the conversation is happening so they have to do it and i think it's a smart thing to do and i think they've done from a content perspective a good job it'll get better i'm sure they'll have some cringe moments too like it is what it is i just my official position is cringe is good more cringe do cringe it's just get to people man you gotta you know i'd rather people have hear from the president than not right and and uh hear from whatever right pokemon go to the fucking pulse but but no i i my feeling about this is that of course he should be on tiktok and and of course they should be uh i think trying to make content that is made for tiktok but what i've been thinking about just the last couple of days especially since since this report came out, is one way I think people, one big challenge we have, right, is that there's this perception-reality disconnect.
And if I was being honest, what I would say is Joe Biden, by all accounts behind the scenes, he's not as energetic as he wants. He's an older man, but he is sharp.
He is on top of these issues. And he has been certainly on domestic policy, an extraordinary president.
Even, you know, Kevin McCarthy says, you know, that Joe Biden, you know, is as sharp as attack, even if he pretends otherwise in public. And yet I think sometimes he seems older and he seems frail.
Donald Trump, felony indictment will sharpen the mind. He is energetic and bombastic on stage, which assuages people about his advanced age.
Yet behind the scenes, he is mentally, psychologically, emotionally unfit to be president. And I wonder if there are ways in which the Biden campaign can show and not tell this story about that beyond just giving energetic and good speeches, which I think you're right, January 6th, the speech was excellent.
The State of the Union was excellent. What can we do to show people Joe Biden as president to make that argument rather than tell that argument? Yeah, I think, I mean, like I said, I think what they've been doing, particularly in social media spaces, is put him with real people.
It's where he always has excelled. If you think back to even his 08 campaign, but certainly when he was chosen as vice president and what the Obama campaign did with him in 08 is they sent him out to, you know, where white folks are basically and let him be Joe.
And he, you know, with all its warts and its pluses and minuses. And I think people still, I know this from research and I know this from my gut, still think Joe Biden is a good and decent man.
He might be an older good and decent man, but he's a good and decent man who has the best interests of the country at heart. And reminding them of that by putting him in sort of positions where he can show it can overcome sort of the reality that he's older, four years older than he was four years ago.

And so that. putting him in sort of positions where he can show it can overcome sort of the reality that he's older,

four years older than he was four years ago.

And so that is to me the, you know, that's the campaign strategy piece of this, right? You got to put him in positions to be himself and show the best of himself.

And that's what a campaign is.

I'm going back to that.

Like we have nine months to do that. And I think they will do that.
I hope they will do that. And it will find its way to the voters.
Then you have on top of that, you have to layer on advertising and other, you know, the other things that go into communicating a message and sort of mainlining it to people, the earned media, the paid media, et cetera. But ultimately it's about the president and his ability to show it.
And you got to put him in places where he can show it. I think that's a good place to leave it.
Yeah. So good to see you.
So good to see you too. Good to be here in person.
I'm so glad to have you. So smart.
So helpful. I try.
I try. Realistic, yet reassuring, but not too reassuring.
It's good. Got to keep it 100.
We'll be right back with my conversation with Governor Chris Christie,

which was a good time on the whole.

But before we get to that exciting pre-announcement announcement,

our new tour dates for Pod Save America

are about to be announced.

Pre-sale tickets are only available

through Friends of the Pod.

So sign up now to snag the best seats.

Go to crooked.com slash friends to join.

If you haven't joined yet, please do it.

Get in there.

Join the community.

Look, we know things don't feel great right now,

but we can equip ourselves for the unprecedented months ahead

without letting the news overwhelm us.

Join us each week at Strict Scrutiny

as we break down the cases that will decide the rules

We'll see your daily news diet with a dose of necessary legal analysis and a healthy serving of our Real Housewives takes, some pop music, and 90s throwbacks. Because we believe there's no better way to unwind after an oral argument than by watching a stupid reality TV argument.
Subscribe to Strict Scrutiny wherever you get your podcasts, and don't forget to check out full episodes on YouTube. Joining us now, he's the former governor of New Jersey and GOP presidential candidate and author of a newly released book, which I believe is called Reagan Good.
Chris Christie, welcome back to the pod. I was happy back, and it is not Reagan Good.
It is What Would Reagan Do? Oh, What Would Reagan Do? Sorry. I'm sorry.
That's okay. And we'll get to it.
And I will ask you that question. So so Laura Trump for for co-rnc chair not the obvious choice but she must have written uh quite a cover letter will the republican party be safe with her at the helm well i mean she's not going to be at the helm i mean you know her father-in-law will be at the helm and um and he and his political team will be telling her what to do and then she'll do it.

So, you know, I think she's, you know, if you look up figurehead in the dictionary,

a new digital copy would probably have her picture next to it.

Does it matter who's in charge of the Republican National Committee under Trump or is this just a kind of proof point of how much he's taken over the party? It's a proof point of how much he's taken over the party. I mean, when you can install your daughter-in-law as the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, I would say you pretty much have taken control.
So speaking of Republicans bowing to Trump, you were critical of Trump's NATO comments. John Bolton put out a statement saying to Republicans who have said something like, this is just Trump talking like Trump, that he was in the room when Trump damn near withdrew from NATO.
Marco Rubio, meanwhile, said he has zero concerns after Trump told a story encouraging Russia to do whatever the hell it wants to America's NATO allies. Does Rubio understand that president and vice president both can't come from Florida? Yes, he does understand that.
But look, this is typical of what everybody on the Hill, just about everybody on the Hill is doing, which is, as Trump himself said in talking about Tom Emmer, they all bend the knee. And that's what Marco is doing.
Look, I know Marco and Marco is much smarter than that comment. And it is just him being compliant.
Why go on television? Why drive from your house to a studio on an issue that Marco used to care about, right? Which was America's national security was something it was a it was something that he talked about a lot as one of the reasons he should be president united states why drive across town to say something you don't believe on behalf of donald trump why not just stay home on sunday mystery to me i have to tell you the truth i i i see what some of these guys are doing and saying right now And I will tell you this, the only thing that keeps me feeling even slightly okay is that they're all going to own it when this is over. And this is going to be over sometime soon.
It'll either be over in November when Donald Trump loses the general election, or it'll be over in four years. But one way or the other, it's going to be over.

And all of these things that people like Marco and Ted

and Elise Stefanik and all these others are out there saying,

they're going to have to own it.

And it's going to be, I think, a very, very rude awakening

for all of them when people get out of the spell

that they're under with Trump and realize what these folks were willing to sacrifice for their own personal ambition. So one Republican still taking on Trump in the primary is Nikki Haley.
You were caught on a hot mic when you were withdrawing from the race saying she'd get smoked. Have you talked to her since? And are you at all surprised by how much she's sharpened her

message since then? It does seem that something changed. She doesn't sound like someone who's on their way to endorsing Trump at least as much as she used to.
The only reason I think she did it is because it became personal. She got sharp when Trump was personal about her husband.
and it shouldn't have to take that for you to take on Donald Trump. But that being said, you know, the spending numbers for through the end of January just came out in the past day or two.
Nikki Haley Super PAC has spent a total and they've spent over one hundred and thirty130 million. They spent a total of $2 million on ads that attack or criticize Donald Trump.
So what I'd urge you and the people who are listening to this is don't give Nikki Haley credit because once he starts personally picking on her husband, she starts to get a little sharper at him. You judge people in politics by where they spend their money.
And how about this? My super PAC, which has been shut down now for over a month, has still spent a million dollars more on negative ads against Donald Trump than Nikki Haley's has to date. And I had an eighth of the money that she has.
So then what's she doing? What's she running around running this campaign for? What's the goal? If the ads aren't going after Trump, if you don't think it's going to work, what's the point? 2028. And I said that during the campaign.
There's no way to explain that Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley spent a combined $48 million attacking each other. And that small amount of pittance, a couple million bucks attacking Donald Trump, except that they were trying to set each other up, themselves up for 2028 and didn't care about 2024.
And if lightning struck and something happened to Trump and they happened to get it this time, that would have been fine by them. But if it didn't, they're trying to set themselves up for next time.
So speaking of what could potentially happen to Trump on the legal front, Trump's lawyers are trying to delay his various criminal proceedings. He, in a filing to the Supreme Court, his lawyers said that a criminal trial would radically disrupt his ability to campaign.
Jack Smith has till Tuesday to respond. At the same time, if the Supreme Court drags its feet on the immunity appeal, which I'm actually curious what you think of this immunity appeal, but most think that it's sort of basically frivolous, but they still have the ability to slow things down to push a trial until after November.
Are you concerned about that? Do you want to make sure voters have a verdict on whether or not their presidential candidate is a convicted federal felon before casting a ballot? Well, first off, I'm not concerned that the Supreme Court will delay it. I mean, they acted very quickly on the ballot question.
They didn't delay that. I think they'll act quickly on this too, and I don't believe that they'll take it because I think that the circuit decision is pretty airtight.
I think it makes sense legally and logically. And the Supreme Court doesn't take circuit cases where they agree with the opinion and there's no conflict in any of the other circuits across the country.
So I happen to think they're not going to take the case. And I think that in the end, that'll mean Trump will probably wind up being on trial sometime in May of this year.
According to, I want to just sort of look outside of Trump for a second. According to Monmouth, a poll that was out today, nearly one in five Americans believe Taylor Swift is part of a covert government effort to reelect Joe Biden.
Now you've already spoken about this, but this I thought was interesting that came out today. Among that group, 83% are likely to vote for Trump and nearly three quarters believe Biden won 2020 by fraud.
Like, obviously, Trump exacerbates a conspiratorial mindset among some Republicans, but he also reflects it. He reflects a conspiratorial mindset that was there before he came along.
How do you see how are you how are you going to get the Republican Party to change if they still have these tinfoil hats on? How do you get them to take the tinfoil hats off? Well, I'd say, look, I'd do more than say he reflects it. He not only induces it, he gives it oxygen.
Every day he gives it oxygen. And he wants to because he knows that that's part of his base.
Now, when you think about that, the people who are convinced that the election was stolen and that the ridiculous Taylor Swift stuff, these are people who I think fall into three categories. Category number one is people who really, really believe this stuff.
I think that's the smallest of the cohorts.

Then there's a group that really despises Joe Biden and his policies, and they want

to believe the election was stolen.

That's probably the largest of the cohort.

And then the third piece are the people who say, look, I know Trump's nuts and I know that this doesn't make any sense, but I'm going to stick with him and support him in all these things because I really don't want the Democratic Party completely in charge. And I say that's the second largest cohort.
And they justify everything that way by saying, well, I agree more with his policies, even though he's somebody who wanted to take the Constitution and burn it. And they're willing to walk away from that because they like his policy on taxes better.
To me, as important as taxes are, they're not more important than the Constitution. So I know you've said, I mean, that actually I think goes to sort of this larger question.
You know, you've said you won't vote for Trump and you said you're not prepared to vote for Joe Biden or you can't see yourself voting for Joe Biden because you have a lot of disagreements, you have concerns about his age. Your book is called What Would Reagan Do? Do you see more of a through line between Reagan's optimistic message and Joe Biden's message about America's fundamental decency than you do with Trump's message about how there's American carnage and America is corrupt, America is broken.

Yeah, sure. Absolutely.
I don't think Ronald Reagan would recognize the Republican Party as it stands right now. And worse than not recognize it, he stood up against it.

Remember, back in the mid-60s, early to mid-60s, the John Birch Society, which was, as you know,

greatly racist and anti-Semitic, was a big force in the Republican Party. And Reagan was one of two people who publicly stood up against it.
It was Reagan and William Buckley. And I write about that in the book.
So I think not only would Ronald Reagan not recognize this group and would have more in common from an aspirational perspective with Joe Biden. But I think Ronald Reagan would have been like me on the campaign trail.
He would have been campaigning against this because there were certain principles he was unwilling to abandon. And I think protection of the view of America as a shining city on a hill and an example for the rest of the world is one of those things Reagan would not have given into.
So I'm not going to push you on the vote question, although you'll blink twice if you're waiting for the convention. But just because you're not willing, you have frustrations that a lot of voters have by this choice, by the way.
That doesn't mean you don't have a preference. It doesn't mean you think the choice doesn't matter.
Do you believe that the choice between Joe Biden and Donald Trump matters? What I believe is that we don't know yet what the full choice will be. And I do think there will be, put Bobby Kennedy Jr.
aside, who I think is a joke, and probably won't wind up on the ballot in most

states. But I do think the no labels effort is a real effort.
I think they will get on the ballot

in most, if not all the states. So part of the reason why I'm not making a decision yet,

other than my decision to definitively never vote for Trump, is they might nominate somebody

who I'd prefer to Joe Biden. So for instance, if they nominated Joe Manchin, I would vote for Joe Manchin.
Even if we are heading into an election in which polls are showing that that candidacy is not leading to a third party winning, but actually dividing the anti-Trump vote and potentially putting Trump back in the White House. I don't think that's what, I think you care too much about this.
I think you don't want Trump to win. I don't want Trump to win.
And I would certainly, that would be something I would evaluate as the time went on. I wouldn't be an early voter.
I would go on election day. So I had all the information I could, but I'm just telling you dispositionally, I think Joe Biden is not more qualified than Joe Manchin to be president of the United States in this term coming up.

And so if it was somebody like Manchin, Larry Hogan's now decided to take himself out and run for the United States Senate.

But if Larry had turned out to be the no labels candidate, I would have clearly voted for Larry Hogan over Joe Biden or Donald Trump. But I understand what you're saying, and I'm not an impractical person, but let's really dig in deep, okay? Given the way our elections work, my vote in New Jersey is not going to matter a lick because Joe Biden's going to win New Jersey.
No matter what happens, I think, unless they're a really strong third-party candidate that looked like they could win New Jersey. Otherwise, Donald Trump lost New Jersey to Biden, I think it was by 22 points four years ago.
I can't see him doing any better this time. So as a practical matter too, I'm not, I'm not using this as a way to get out of answering, but I'm just saying also, as I make this decision, I may decide come election day in November that it's more important for me to make a statement about how broken the two party system is and how bad these two candidates are by voting for a Joe Manchin, for instance, because it won't matter in my state anyway for the practical reason you just talked about.
It's not a popular vote system. It's an electoral system, right? So that's probably deeper than any of us ever wanted to get into determining my vote, but I'm just telling you the way I would think about it.
Yeah, well, I know I'm not. Obviously, your vote in New Jersey, you know, it's a it's a moral victory.
But but your vote matters insofar as I agree with you about the threat Donald Trump poses. And that, to me, means I want people of good conscience to stand up and say not just that I don't want to do say support Trump, but I actually think even though I have reservations, even though I have very big policy differences, as Liz Cheney said, the country can survive policy differences.
Not sure it can survive four more years of Trump that despite that, that this, this moment requires me to do something I don't find particularly tasteful, but is necessary to save the country. And I'm not telling you that I won't.

I'm just telling you I'm not there yet.

You know, I mean, the only thing that I have decided firmly is that I will not vote for

Trump under any circumstances.

But the rest of it, I'm leaving open until I see what all my choices are and how the

landscape plays out.

Because as we know, I suspect this is going to take like three or four different twists

and turns for both of these characters between now and November. So let's see how it plays out.
I really appreciate in your speech dropping out of the race, you talked a lot about how the decision stays with you, that it was stubborn. So for all the people who have been in this race, who have put their own personal ambition

ahead of what's right, they will ultimately have to answer the same questions that I had to answer after my decision in 2016. Those questions don't ever leave.
In fact, they're really stubborn. they stay

how does the stubbornness

of

your In fact, they're really stubborn. They stay.
How does the stubbornness of your realization around your previous endorsement of Trump, how does it affect how you think about your role in this election? It makes me believe that I have to be as outspoken as I've already been and continue to be. But even though I'm no longer a candidate, that was not a surrender of my principles.
It was a surrender to the reality of the primary. And so I intend to be just as vocal, just as active in pointing out to Republicans and independents all over this country why he is not a fit option to be president.
And I feel like I have an obligation to do that because in my heart, I believe it to be true. And in my head, knowing him as well and as long as I do, I know it's the truth.
So before we let you go, obviously, I presented you with the big big hypothetical but i just want to understand your mindset on a few other rapid fire hypotheticals on biden versus trump okay uh just to see where your head's at sure who would you trust to water your plants if you're out of town trump or biden trump oh come on to water your plants your plants are fucking dead i'm afraid biden would forget. Oh, they're, you know, I knew you were going to fucking do that.
Who would you trust to peacefully transfer power between administrations? Biden. Who would you trust to watch your stuff at Starbucks when you went to the bathroom? They're both so bad.
I would ask the barista to watch my stuff. All right.
And now look, this is a little Mormon andon and maybe it's i don't mean it to be glib but i do just mean it about the men which is who would you rather uh give a eulogy if you were to die biden because i've known him for 40 years and i think i can more honestly say the kind of things you'd like to say at

someone's funeral about him than I could about Trump. Final question.
What are you doing for your wife for Valentine's Day? And it can't be buying flowers on your way home because anyone married to you deserves so much more. Well, I'm already home, so I blew that.
I have gotten her a card

and written a note

hold on now let me give the full answer we um we made an agreement with each other this year at my wife's suggestion she said look i don't know what i want to get you for valentine's day i don't want to waste the time trying to figure it out can we please don't make me feel guilty though by going out and getting me something and then i'm gonna have nothing for you so let's not exchange gifts this this valentine's day and i'm gonna i'm gonna stick with that we're not gonna exchange gifts and by the way we've been married by the way we've been married for 38 years? We've been together for 40. And so we've exchanged probably 37 or 38 Valentine's Day gifts.
So when you get to this stage, it's a little bit different. But if you read my card.
What a trap you fell in. What a trap.
But look, if you read my card, it would bring tears to your eyes. You'd weep.
All right. You'd you'd weep all right all right uh uh the book is what would reagan the book is what would reagan do and apparently it's whatever you think you should do uh and uh it is not i know you're look i am i i know you're not going to buy the book so i'm not going to buy the book i know you're not so i am going to send you a signed And I just want to know, we have a book, all right? And I'm just saying, if you're hearing this and you're even considering buying Chris Christie's book and you haven't bought our book first, you can go fuck yourself.
Oh, well, look, why can't they buy both? Now I feel this. Now I feel dirty.
The stock market is at an all-time high. People are doing a little bit better.

Why can't they go by both books?

Thanks to Joe Biden's leadership.

Thanks to Joe Biden's leadership.

The convention speech writes itself.

I don't know about that.

I might say it was because of the great work of the chairman of the Fed.

Fucking get out of here.

Governor Chris Christie, it sucks.

You love this.

You love this.

Happy Valentine's Day to us both. To both of us, absolutely.
Feel the love. Adizu, thank you so much for being here.
That was really great. Really appreciate it.
My pleasure. Anytime.
I'll be back when you ask me to come back. Fantastic.
If you want to get ad-free episodes, exclusive content, and more, consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. And if you're already doomscrolling, don't forget to follow us at Pod Save America on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more.
Plus, if you're as opinionated as we are, consider dropping us a review. Pod Save America is a Crooked Media production.
Our show is produced by Olivia Martinez and David Toledo. Our associate producers are Saul Rubin and Farrah Safari.
Kira Joaquim is our senior producer. Reid Cherlin is our executive producer.
The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer, with audio support from Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis.
Writing support by Hallie Kiefer. Madeline Herringer is our head of news and programming.
Matt DeGroat is our head of production.

Andy Taft is our executive assistant.

Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Mia Kelman, David Toles,

Kirill Pellaviv, and Molly Lobel.