Chuck Todd says top Democrats 'paralyzed' by opposite wings of the party
"Jeffries and Schumer are acting paralyzed because they have two different constituencies. They have ones who are worried about a left-wing tea party, and they should be worried about that, because I do think this anger inside the base is real," Todd said during an appearance on CNN.
Todd recently departed NBC News after moderating "Meet the Press" for several years. He now hosts a podcast called "The Chuck Toddcast." The panel discussed the Democratic response and protests during President Donald Trump's address to Congress.
"Then you have others who are like, hey, I won, and Trump carried my state. So I've got to do this. So, I think that's why Jeffries and Schumer come across as paralyzed because they're trying to placate a coalition party that doesn't know which direction to go to," Todd continued.
"This really they should be having a loud argument the way Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson did in 1989 and 1990 after a thrashing in 1988 where Republicans won," Todd said. "And the problem is, the Democrats right now are afraid of having a public debate because they don't want to help out Trump, but I do think it's stifling their ability to figure out what to do next."
Republican strategist Brad Todd said that Democrats needed to win over Trump voters if they wanted to win back control of the House.
"Democrats can't take the house unless they appeal to people who voted for Donald Trump. That's their challenge," Todd said.
Todd said during a recent podcast interview that former President Biden was a "craven political animal."
During an appearance Sunday on Lincoln Project co-founder Steve Schmidt's "The Warning" podcast, Todd delved into why the Democrats lost the 2024 election and what he perceives as the media's relationship with the second Trump administration.
"You know, Joe Biden never should have been there in the first place, right? Number one, he shouldn't have run for president [in 2020]," Todd remarked.
"I completely got so angry at Joe Biden, the man, when I read the transcript of the Hunter Biden trial, and when I realized that not one, not two, but three Biden children, and I count Beau's widow, were all dealing with drug problems in 2018. And Joe Biden said, 'Now's a perfect time to run for president, because who cares about our family?'"
"I have to tell you something about Joe Biden. There's this mythology about Joe Biden, that the man cared so much, it's all bulls---," he continued.
Todd said Biden had "created this myth," over his 40-year career, that he was an "incredible family man."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘They roll right over': Many Democratic voters call their party weak and ineffective, poll finds
WASHINGTON — Many Democrats see their political party as 'weak' or 'ineffective,' while Republicans are more complimentary of their party, although a small but significant share describe the GOP as 'greedy' or say it is generally 'bad,' according to a new poll. The poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in July reveals warning signs for both major U.S. parties as the political focus shifts to elections in New Jersey and Virginia this fall and the midterm contests next year. Respondents were asked to share the first word or phrase that came to mind when they thought of the Republican and Democratic parties. Answers were then sorted into broad categories, including negative and positive attributes. Overall, U.S. adults held a dim view of both parties, with about 4 in 10 using negative attributes, including words such as 'dishonest' or 'stupid.' But nearly nine months after Republican Donald Trump won a second presidential term, Democrats appear to be harboring more resentment about the state of their party than do Republicans. Democrats were likelier to describe their own party negatively than Republicans. Republicans were about twice as likely to describe their own party positively. 'They're spineless,' Cathia Krehbiel, a 48-year-old Democrat from Indianola, Iowa, said of her party. She believes the party's response to the Trump administration has been 'scattershot.' 'I just feel like there's so much recently that's just going abhorrently wrong,' Krehbiel said. 'And they speak up a little bit and they roll right over.' Overall, roughly one-third of Democrats described their party negatively in the open-ended question. About 15% described the Democratic Party using such words as 'weak' or 'apathetic,' while an additional 10% believe it is broadly 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Only about 2 in 10 Democrats described their party positively, with roughly 1 in 10 saying it is 'empathetic' or 'inclusive.' An additional 1 in 10 used more general positive descriptors. It is unclear what effect the Democrats' unease may have on upcoming elections or the political debate in Washington, but no political organization wants to be plagued by internal divisions. Still, the Democrats' frustration appears to reflect their concern that party leaders are not doing enough to stop Trump's GOP, which controls Washington. There is little sign that such voters would abandon their party in favor of Trump's allies in upcoming elections, and the vast majority of Democrats described the GOP negatively. But disaffected Democrats might decide not to vote at all. That could undermine their party's push to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress in 2026. Jim Williams, a 78-year-old retiree from Harper Woods, Mich., is a self-described political independent who said he typically supports Democrats, but he is 'disappointed' with the party and its murky message. He views the Republican Party as much worse, saying it 'has lost it' under Trump's leadership. 'All he does is bully and call names. They've got no morals, no ethics. And the more they back him, the less I like them,' he said of Trump. Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to describe their party positively, with many also using straightforward ideological descriptors like 'conservative.' About 4 in 10 Republicans used positive attributes to characterize the GOP, making general mentions of words such as 'patriotic' or 'hardworking,' or offering associations with the word 'freedom.' Samuel Washington, 65, of Chicago, said he typically votes Republican. He praised Trump's leadership, even while acknowledging that the president's policies on trade and spending might be creating short-term economic hardship. 'There's a lot of pain, but the pain is the result of 12 years of misuse and misguided leadership from the Democratic Party,' he said. 'I'm feeling really good about Republicans and the direction that they're going.' But views were not uniformly good. About 2 in 10 Republicans said something negative about the party, including phrases such as 'greedy,' 'for the rich' or 'corrupt.' Republican Dick Grayson, an 83-year-old veteran from Trade, Tenn., said he is 'disappointed' by his party's fealty to Trump. Among other things, he pointed to the price tag of Trump's tax-and-spend package, which will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'I've always been a Republican, but I'm disillusioned about both parties,' Grayson said. Among all Americans, the poll finds that the Republican Party is viewed slightly more negatively than the Democratic Party. The different is not large: 43% used negative words to describe the Republicans, compared with 39% for the Democrats. Much of the negativity is driven by the opposing party — and nonaligned voters' distaste for both. So-called political independents are much likelier to describe both parties with negative attributes rather than positive descriptors, though a significant share did not offer an opinion. Curtis Musser, a 60-year-old unaffiliated voter from Beverly Hills, Fla., said both parties have shifted too far toward the extreme for his liking. He said he is ready for a serious third party to emerge before the next presidential election, pointing to Elon Musk's new America Party, which has been slow to launch. 'Maybe he would get us headed in the right direction,' the retired schoolteacher said. The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. Peoples, Sanders and Yoo write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York, Sanders and Yoo from Washington.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
'They're trying to rig the system': Sen. Padilla says Dems should fight fire with fire
California's Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla said his party should be willing to fight fire with fire, in light of Texas' potential, controversial gerrymandering plans. "If Republicans were confident on their policy agenda, they'd be eager to defend it with the people and to defend it at the ballot box next November," Padilla said in an Aug. 3 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But they know they're in trouble," he continued. "And so they're trying to rig the system to hold on to power." The California senator was referencing Texas Republicans' proposed new map of their state's congressional districts, following President Donald Trump's urging that the GOP find a way to flip as many as five seats in next year's midterm elections. "Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats," Trump told reporters on July 15. Padilla likened Trump's ask of Texas Republicans to his request during his first term in office that a top Georgia official "find 11,780 votes" to put him over the top in the Electoral College for the 2020 election. Redistricting in the middle of the decade, rather than every ten years after new census data is collected, is rare. And the pushback from Democrats across the country has been widespread. Blue state leaders have threatened tit-for-tat responses, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has suggested redrawing his state's map to counteract Texas' efforts. (Newsom faces the challenge of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps, unlike Texas, where lawmakers dictate the boundaries.) Some California Democrats are wary, warning that a redistricting arms race could spiral and erode trust with voters. In response to those concerns, Padilla told NBC he believes it's appropriate for the Democrat-controlled state to evaluate its options. "The ideal scenario," he said, "is for Texas to stand down. They don't have to do this; they shouldn't do this. But if they were to go forward and deliver Trump his five additional Republicans ... the stakes are simply too high" for Democrats not to respond. Padilla also addressed recent comments from his fellow Democrats about the state of politics and American democracy, including Sen. Cory Booker's call for his party to "have a backbone." "It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines," Booker said from the Senate floor on July 29. Asked whether Booker's defiant approach was the appropriate stance for Democrats under the Trump administration, Padilla said, "Look, I think the extreme way in which this administration is conducting itself calls for higher and higher profile ways of pushing back." After announcing that she would not be running for California governor in 2026, former Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on CBS's "The Late Show" with Stephen Colbert. In her interview on July 31, Harris told Colbert, "Recently, I made the decision that, for now, I don't want to go back into the system. I think it's broken." Padilla agreed, in part, with Harris' take, saying, "I think the system is under duress." "Democrats are doing our part to try to stand up and push back," he added.
