50
votes
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | February 12, 2024
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Jon Stewart Tackles The Biden-Trump Rematch That Nobody Wants | The Daily Show
- Authors
- The Daily Show
- Duration
- 20:30
- Published
- Feb 13 2024
I'm glad that Jon hasn't lost a step in his presentation and it's not just bringing back the crowd pleaser. I'm glad that he's not doing the late night "orange man bad" and is willing to hit at both sides, but at the same time, I can't help feeling that we're nine months away from the think pieces of "how Jon Stewart swung the election" one way or another.
I can't help but feel like the takeaway a lot of people are going to have from this segment is political apathy and a belief that it doesn't really matter who they vote for or if they vote at all. Especially because, as his first episode back on the show, this is the segment that's going to get the most views.
Which is not to say that he's wrong. Biden is way too old to be running for office. He should be retired. But I don't really have a lot of strong complaints about his presidency. He's got the right people doing their jobs the way they are supposed to, which means a lot more than people might want to give him credit for.
Trump winning the election is dangerous. He is openly expressing dictatorial aspirations. I think losing his reelection is going to make any second term he wins even more radical.
I'm on board with the "Really? This old man is the best we can field against Trump?" narrative this segment was advancing. But at the same time I can't help but worry about what the takeaway is going to be for a lot of people. We have enough of a problem with voter turnout in this country. And drawing a false equivalence between Democrats and Republicans only makes that worse. And even if Jon Stewart didn't literally say that, I think that's what a lot of people are going to hear.
If that's their takeaway then that's a fault of them more than Stewart, this time around. The last (non-joke) remarks he makes aren't just an appeal to average people for them to understand that it takes a village to maintain civic engagement, but an explicit acknowledgement that his previous heckling of said engagement was to use his words "glib at best, and probably dismissive at worst." It remains to be seen if he can continually reach the bar he set with this (re)debut, but I can't think of a better way for him to have taken the Daily Show desk back.
I can't help but think that if we're this close and comedians mocking a clearly too old to be running for this position candidate is the tipping point of electing another too old to be running for this position candidate who is a criminal and expresses no desire to adhere to the rule of law, then we already lost. If that's all that's keeping true evil away, then we're fucked.
It wasn't even exactly a "both sides" type of thing, there was clearly one side that was portrayed as worse than the other.
Calling them "think pieces" would be a stretch. They'll be thoughtless word vomit written by coattail riders wanting attention by placing blame on someone saying out loud what everyone is already thinking.
That was a lot of talk about politicians and very, very little about actual politics.
I have never watched this show before, so is it just this show or is this really what American political discourse looks like? Not that it shouldn't be addressed that these candidates are way too old to be in a position of power like this, but still. Is John Oliver's show an exception in going into the details of actual political topics?
There's not much to say on policy. Trump wants to be a dictator. Biden is stagnation incarnate.
I think that's something worth talking about. Biden has been shown to be somewhat surprisingly effective as President but the general consensus still seems to be exactly what it was before he took office, that he's just a boring do nothing centrist, or stagnation incarnate. Which kinda makes a reinforcing loop where people think Biden is boring, so they don't pay much attention to him, which just makes him seem even more boring.
So I think the major issue is I haven't really seen him prove that he's the one actually doing anything. He looks like he should retire. Is he just signing things? Are his cabinet members doing all of the work? To be fair, compared to the last administration I love the Biden presidency. And some sweet stuff has come to pass in the last few years (I like the climate legislation in the Inflation Reduction Act).
If he had a really precise mission and actually orated on that topic I'd believe in him personally.
The cabinet members are supposed to be doing all of the work. The president is there to appoint them, to provide strategic direction and executive decision-making, but at the end of the day the business of running the government is largely delegated to the hopefully-competent people that the president has appointed in the cabinet.
There are competing visions of how much power is supposed to be held by a unitary executive, but I'm very much hoping we don't get to see that alternative next year.
Ditto. I’ll add that Biden is good at choosing, for the most part, competent and well-meaning leadership. People who look out for others on the other side despite having good reason to be resentful.
At least from the outside, I feel like part of the issue is the disconnect between the different branches of government. You talk, for example, about some of the legislation he's passed, but that's all had to go through Congress and the Senate first, right? So is legislation a congressional achievement or a presidential one?
In a lot of other democratic systems I know, the primary political figure for a party is their leader in that country's parliament, or at least actively involved in the parliament. Where there is a presidential position, that position is often more formal - meeting other heads of state, protecting the constitution, national ceremonies, etc. But people like Sunak, Scholz, and Varadkar are all in charge of the legislation in their respective countries. Even in France, which has a more US-like setup, the President appoints the Prime Minister, and the elections for President and Parliament are held within a few weeks of each other, meaning that the President is often a good proxy for the legislative leader of the country.
Whereas in the US, it feels like the President is by far the more important role (and certainly the role we use to divide American political history up into eras - the Nixon Administration, the Bush Administration, etc), and yet they have little direct legislative power, and, if the Senate and Congress elections go the wrong way, almost no de facto ability to push legislation. Which seems to lead to a culture where legislation happens typically more via other means - cancelling student debt, for example, was not initially done via legislation, but via presidential powers, and a lot of the long-term role of a president seems to be making sure the right people get installed into the Supreme Court.
Yes, but as the figurehead of the country he has a lot of power to drum up political support for things. Pick something 70% of Americans want, don’t have, and can be given by removing something or outlawing an unethical practice. Beat that drum every day. Hold massive rallies. Bully Congress into the change if need be. Of the two candidates, Trump is the only one doing this at all. But his most famous example was a wimpy failed coup. Biden could be doing this for housing reform - ban the rental cartel enabled by RealPage, ban ultra wealthy individuals from messing with supply. Those are the most politically viable steps we can start taking right now. We can do so much more if we actually try.
Why doesn’t Joe go out there and actually get stuff fixed? Why is he happy with our stagnation?
This is exactly what I don't want out of a president. I don't want a president who uses emotional manipulation to achieve his goals, because those emotional goals are often not what's best for our country. I don't want a president with the power and influence to bully congress into doing what he wants. The constitution says that the president's job is to enforce laws and congress's job is to create them, and I think we should stick to that kind of separation of powers, at least as much as it makes sense in the modern age. I want the president to remain as far away from a king as possible.
I understand that yelling and controversy and media exposure are more important than deeds for public perception these days, but in terms of actions Trump should really be labeled the stagnant one rather than Biden. I still remember one of the first things Trump did as president-elect was to negotiate a tax cut with the Carrier corporation to keep jobs in the US. Well, they ended up moving more jobs overseas anyway, so it just ended up being a corporate handout for nothing in return. Then he cut taxes, mostly for the rich. Those are the kinds of achievements Trump has. I'd say that actions like this have more to do with stagnation and maintaining the status quo than Biden's tenure as president.
Trump promised a big infrastructure bill near the beginning of his presidency, but it was Biden that got a big infrastructure bill passed, along with other large infrastructure investments like the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPs Act. There's been a lot of student loan reform, with fixes to the public service loan forgiveness program ( I personally benefited from this), and new income-based repayment plans. The EPA has gotten a lot more funding and support under Biden. I remember listening to an episode of Science Friday where someone working on endangered species conservation mentioned that things are a lot better under Biden.
I get that Biden has been boring, but I like boring after having a guy who posts 20 unhinged tweets a day, and the more I see of his presidency the more I feel like he's doing a decent job. Not an amazing world-breaking job, but a decent one, especially considering how bad the last one was.
Again, this is the figure by whom people define eras in American politics, the "leader of the free world", and, at least from outside, the driver of American political discussion. Why is his role to drum up support for his policies? That just feels like a recipe for stagnation.
The Presidency is a lot like being Hokage in Naruto. People make a big deal about it as the end all be all pinnacle of winning the game of society, but the reality is that most of the job is boring meetings and administrative work that lays the foundation for stuff rather than being the denouement.
Define stagnation in this context.
I'd like to see a president that threatens the means the ultra-wealthy use to steal wealth from everyone else.
Biden is literally the first president in history to join striking workers on the picket line.
The inflation reduction act created a minimum 15% corporate tax to ensure profitable billion dollar companies no longer pay $0 in taxes and used that tax money to take some of the most significant climate action in US history.
The inflation reduction act also included millions of dollars for the IRS to actually hire the investigators needed to catch rich tax cheats, after Republicans have spent the last decade gutting the IRS to help the rich get away with cheating on their taxes. And early indications are that this has been even more successful in bringing in tax revenue from the rich than anticipated.
Biden doesn’t shout revolutionary rhetoric, but he has been excellent at making material progress in taxing the rich and supporting the working class while having the slimiest possible majorities in the House and the Senate (see the recent behavior of the slim Republican House majority to see how difficult slim majorities are to work with).
Only when it’s convenient: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-signs-bill-block-us-railroad-strike-2022-12-02/
Like yeah I’m glad he’s not trump but I think we can do better.
Here’s the thing: in 2024 you cannot do better. These are the choices. The time for “better” was in 2020, or 2016. You can try again for better in 2028. But I think that chance for better gets a lot slimmer if Trump wins this year.
And yet people were saying the same things in 2016 and 2020. Do you think Trump is some isolated germ who won't have a successor?
lol no and I can’t imagine what in my comment gave you that impression. The GOP is utterly devoid of good ideas and good candidates, I’m very aware that whatever they churn out after Trump will be no better and likely worse. But there’s no crying over spilled milk, for better or for worse our choices for 2024 are clear. But in 2028 at least the democrats will be holding another round of primaries which is our opportunity to adjust the direction of the party, not to mention all the smaller local elections where progressive candidates have a much better chance for election and meaningful change in a voter’s life.
This is exactly what we were told by the democratic party in 2020. What makes you think it's going to be any different in 2028?
Oh weird, because I totally recall voting in my democratic primary in 2020.
As do I. Here's the problem: the primary system doesn't work.
Of course adopting a new elections system is not easy, nor will it solve all of the united states's problems.
Our systems are fundamentally broken. Systems built on good intentions stop working when people participate in bad faith.
We deserve better.
Biden was supposed to be a one-term president. Biden could've resigned, the DNC could've pressured him to resign, or could've facilitated a primary so others could at least have a chance at getting some recognition before 2028. "Vote blue no matter who" is a cop-out, full stop.
I don't have solutions to any of the problems I've listed above: they're incredibly challenging problems that all require their own multi-faceted solutions. But I know the solution isn't Joe Biden.
For what it's worth, I will be voting in the election. And assuming nothing changes*, I'm voting for Biden. But he didn't win my vote, just like he didn't win it in 2020.
*ie: he becomes incapacitated because he is too old to have The Most Important Job In The World
Oh I don’t disagree with any of this (except the notion that Biden ever would have stopped at one term or that the DNC would want to pressure him to do so; as you pointed out incumbents have an advantage and running someone new against Trump essentially casts Trump as the incumbent considering he’s actually held the office, even if poorly). In fact, I agree with nearly every point you made in your thoughtful and well-sourced comment. But you play the hand you are dealt. And the hand we have been dealt in 2024 is Biden vs Trump 2 whether anyone likes it or not. And frankly, even with everything pointed out in Stewart’s piece regarding Biden’s age he’s still the best choice (of the two choices that we stuck with). When you vote for a president you aren’t just voting for once person, you are voting for an entire administration, and while there’s things I would prefer were done differently or more quickly, I have overall been impressed with Biden’s administration. It has been the most leftward-focused administration of my lifetime (even if it is still not as progressive as I would prefer). He’s putting good people in these positions and if I have to choose between two senile geezers I’d rather not have the one who would put Stephen Miller or his ilk in any position of power.
If you want to see answers to the problems in our system that you have so thoroughly outlined I believe the key is start local. Get Ranked Choice Voting on the ballot in your city or county. Let the people in your community see how it works, the results it can deliver. The more people you win over the easier it will be to get RCV on a statewide ballot. Start electing progressives in your local elections and help them gain name recognition and notoriety that can propel them to a larger stage, and eventually the national stage. Everyone wants change and they want it now, but change happens over years and years of convincing people that the changes you want are worth it, and it’s always an uphill battle. But it can be done. Alaska and Maine both use RCV for statewide elections now.
Absolutely! Still working on getting my bearings (moved to WA in August last year), but had a lovely chat with my new city councilmember while she was running for office. It was refreshing to finally have a representative that I could say actually represented me.
One caution about focusing entirely on local elections: state elections in more conservative states can be even more impactful: Texas has a pattern of passing legislation at the state level with the sole goal of preventing cities from governing themselves–it's harder to enact change at that level, but worth keeping a close eye on.
This is his first show after a nine year break on The Daily Show, this is certainly more of a re-introduction episode than a news episode.
At one point, a strong majority of younger americans got their news from the daily show/colbert report. It was meant to be funny and satirical, but was also quite insightful and informative, and gave a voice to left leaning youngsters’ frustrations. There was a hilarious segment where my hometown republican chairperson got outed as racist (he literally said, on national television, “I have a black friend.”)
We live in a highly deconstructed time, poe’s law has spilled out into the broader culture. Until we not quite rich progressives can figure out a good collective action, laughter laughter is probably more helpful than weeping.
Jon and the writers knocked it out of the park with this episode! The catharsis is back :)
Based