Stephen A Smith FINALLY Speaks Out AGAINST Whoopi Goldberg & The View On Live TV

rats. But I I do have this to say to you. It was important, I think, for Democrats to show that they stood with the LGBT community, that they stood with black women and women in general, because once you let us go, once you let women and poor people go, >> okay, >> what do you have? And so I've listened to lots of people say, you know, that you didn't follow what was necessary. They did it the way they thought they could. It didn't work for them. They got it. >> See, respectfully, I don't like that. Let me explain. Okay. Let me explain. >> As a Democrat, the bottom line is this. When we talk about poor people, who ain't thinking about poor people? Democratic party. I know I do. I know I I know that most candidates within the Democratic party that I know, I know they think about poor folks. I know they think about the desolate and the disenfranchised. I get that. But what I'm saying is is that during the campaign, were you doing what it takes to win? You had too many people going after him for stuff that wasn't going to stick. It wasn't going to influence his voters. So, what I would say to you, what are you doing to win? I love Wesmore, the governor of Maryland. I love John of Pennsylvania. Okay. I just interviewed Cuomo. I like him a lot. >> I want somebody to step up and recognize that man in the Oval Office, whether you like it or not, is potent. He's coming and he wins. You got to find a way to beat him. This way is not the way that the Democrats will do it. >> Whoopy Goldberg and The Views hosts welcomed Steven A. Smith onto their stage, expecting a fiery anti-Trump conversation. But what they got left them speechless. The lifelong liberal didn't just dismantle Whoopi's arguments. He defended Trump with such razor sharp precision that jaws across the audience hit the floor. Steven A's blistering takedown was the stuff of television legend. If bold, unfiltered political commentary is your thing, smash that subscribe button and let's get into it. >> And he's been going around with his cronies touting his so-called lands landslide and blowout win. But he won the popular vote by 1.5%, one of the smallest ever, >> and he won the general election by less than 50%. So what kind of mandate is this really? >> Well, it it is a mandate, and I'm going to explain why. And I don't mind the question, but let me be very clear. I'm no supporter of Trump. I'm a supporter of truth and the facts. And here's the facts. The man won every swing state. He increased in terms of his vote voter turnout in his favor from the standpoint of blacks, Latinos, and young voters. He increased his numbers in that regard from 2020. 89% of the counties shifted to the right. That's a mandate. We can sit up there and play around all we want to. In 2020, they didn't Trump didn't win the popular vote. He didn't win the electoral college vote. A matter of fact, the Republicans hadn't won the the the popular vote if I remember correctly. This is 2004, >> but they did this year. The silence in that room was practically deafening. You could feel the tension crackling beneath the surface as Steven A. Smith methodically laid the groundwork for the fireworks that were about to follow. The host sat composed, confident, even, completely unaware of the storm heading their way. Then Joy Behar made her move. She casually attempted to downplay Trump's staggering achievements during the last presidential election, clearly expecting the usual nods of agreement from around the table. She didn't get them. Not from Steven A. With surgical precision, he fact checked her in real time, dismantling her narrative point by point. He reminded the entire panel on live television that this exact brand of dismissiveness, this stubborn refusal to take Trump seriously, is precisely what handed him the election in the first place. What followed next? Nothing short of total obliteration. And trust me, you are not ready >> definition of a mandate. I guess >> but but the problem is is that if you're the Democratic party and you lost 49.8% to 48.3% and you're looking at that 1.5% dip, that's an excuse for you to say what we did really wasn't that bad. We should continue to do that. >> Don't continue to do that. Find a new strategy. >> But do you think those groups uh the black voters, the Latino voters, and the others that you mentioned, are they going to regret it soon? Possibly. I think so. I don't like what I'm seeing from Trump. I didn't like what I saw with Zillinsky. I didn't like what I saw with a few things. But in the end, in the end, the point Yeah. I didn't like it. But in the end, what it comes down to is this. The American people in their eyes, it wasn't about him. They were voting against what the Democrats were throwing in their direction. I don't talk to Cuomo. >> Now, here's the critical insight that far too many Democrats, including senior party officials, are dangerously failing to absorb. The middleground voters who swung this election didn't necessarily cast their ballots for Trump. Many of them have deep reservations about the man himself. But that didn't matter because they weren't voting for him. They were voting against something. They were voting against the relentless tide of radical progressive ideology that had steadily crept into every corner of American life. They listened to politicians speak, watched the messaging unfold, and reached a breaking point. The woke agenda in their eyes had gone too far, too extreme, too disconnected from the everyday realities of ordinary Americans. And so, reluctantly or not, they turned to Trump not as their ideal candidate, but as the most formidable wall standing between them and an ideology they simply refused to accept. >> And you're saying, "Yo, Stephen A, you could be on the debate stage with these politicians and you get an opportunity. Are you referring to?" >> I would love it. I'm referring to all of them. Everybody, nobody passed on from the Democratic Party. Well, again, she was the candidate, but we know what happened. I thought she was set up to fail by the Democratic party personally because you bypassed the primary. You knew that Biden wasn't ready. You knew it for a year and you did nothing. And you were really trying to sell the American people on pushing him forward as a Democratic nominee knowing that inauguration he would have been 82 years of age. Stop it. So, they knew better. That's a problem for him, not everybody. Nancy Pelosi is sharp, but Biden didn't appear that way. The argument has been made, and not without some merit, that Kla Harris was fundamentally set up to fail. Handed the baton with mere days to campaign, while Biden's cognitive decline had long been an open secret. The odds were undeniably stacked against her. But here's where that argument falls apart. Kla Harris was vice president of the United States for several years, yet somehow expected voters to believe she never once harbored presidential ambitions. That alone strained credibility. Then consider what she inherited. One of the most formidable, best funded campaign machines in modern American political history, armed with tens of millions of dollars and a worldclass team of strategists. And she still lost decisively. The fatal blow, however, came during a defining interview moment when pressed on what she would do differently from Biden. Her answer was breathtaking in its emptiness. Absolutely nothing. The voters heard her loud and clear. >> But I I do have this to say to you. It was important, I think, for Democrats to show that they stood with the LGBT community, that they stood with black women and women in general, because once you let us go, once you let women and poor people go, >> okay, >> what do you have? And so, I've listened to lots of people say, you know, that you didn't follow what was necessary. They did it the way they thought they could. It didn't work for them. They got it. See, respectfully, I don't like that. Let me explain. Let me explain. >> As a Democrat, the bottom line is this. When we talk about poor people, we ain't thinking about poor people. Democratic party, I know I do. I know I I know that most candidates within the Democratic party that I know, I know they think about poor folks. I know they think about the desolate and the disenfranchised. I get that. But what I'm saying is is that during the campaign, were you doing what it takes to win? You had too many people going after him for stuff that wasn't going to stick. It wasn't going to influence his voters. So, what I would say to you, >> and that right there is the crux of the entire matter, the Democratic Party built much of its strategy around one singular obsession, defeating Donald Trump, demonize him, disqualify him, make him the villain in every headline, every rally, every campaign ad. And for a moment, it worked. In 2020, the orange man bad playbook delivered them the White House. But 2024 was a completely different battlefield. Americans had grown exhausted, not necessarily of Trump himself, but of being told repeatedly and relentlessly that defeating him was the only thing that mattered. Voters wanted a vision. They wanted a governing philosophy. They wanted tangible proof that Democrats, after years of holding the levers of power, had actually delivered something meaningful for ordinary people. Instead, they got more of the same tired anti-Trump rhetoric. The Democratic Party confused opposition with leadership and on election night, the American electorate delivered a brutal, unambiguous verdict. >> It wasn't going to influence his voters. So what I would say to you, Whoopi, and what I would say to anybody that doesn't want JD Vance or Marco Ruby or somebody like that to succeed him, >> focus on what's going to win. >> Yeah, >> that's where my sports background comes in. Tell me what's going to win. >> I don't want to hear, but I understand the LGBTQ community is important. I understand that the desolate and disenfranchised is somebody we should always be looking out for. I understand the economy. I understand immigration. I get all of that. But the point is, I'm trying to win to make sure that I'm in office and you're not. What is it going to take? The Democrats did not do that last time. >> And Stephen A is absolutely right. This point cannot be overstated. Heading into the 2024 election, the American people had made their priorities crystal clear. The economy was suffocating working families. Streets across major cities felt increasingly lawless. The southern border had descended into what many described as complete and utter chaos. These were not abstract political talking points. These were lived daily realities felt by millions of ordinary Americans desperately searching for answers. Trump, whatever one thinks of him, showed up with answers. He rolled out concrete ideas, bold policies, and a direct message that spoke to those anxieties headon. And what was the Democratic party's counter strategy? lawsuits, indictments, courtrooms, one legal battle after another, stacked in what critics saw as a lastditch attempt to damage Trump before election day ever arrived. While Republicans were talking solutions, Democrats were talking prosecution. The voters noticed and they responded accordingly. >> Willingness to cross the aisle and show that you're willing to work with people to get stuff done so we don't have this chaos just because we disagree. >> Yeah. I think that the Democrats try harder than the Republicans to do that. Well, >> really? >> Yeah. >> I don't know about that when it comes to him. >> Here's what we know. >> Did you catch what Joy Behar just attempted to do right there with remarkable audacity, she insinuated that it was the Republicans doing the interrupting, the ones shutting down conversation and silencing opposing voices. But the footage tells a completely different story, and anyone watching closely could see straight through it. How many times have we witnessed prominent Democrats flatly refuse to engage with Republicans, not because the arguments were weak, but simply because they dared to disagree. This isn't debate. This isn't democracy. This is intellectual cowardice dressed up as moral superiority. And the irony runs even deeper. Several high-profile Democrats have made theatrical public vows to never even utter Donald Trump's name, as though refusing to acknowledge him somehow diminishes his existence. Whoopy Goldberg herself famously joined that club. Yet, these are the same people lecturing America about open dialogue, tolerance, and the sacred health of our democracy. The hypocrisy is truly staggering. What are you doing to win? I love West Moore, the governor of Maryland. I love John of Pennsylvania. Okay. I just interviewed Cuomo. I like him a lot. >> I want somebody to step up and recognize that man in the Oval Office, whether you like it or not, is potent. He's coming and he wins. You got to find a way to beat him. This way is not the way that the democ puts his finger on yet another festering wound within the Democratic party. One they have stubbornly refused to treat. From the moment Trump descended that famous escalator in 2015, Democrats have chronically catastrophically underestimated him. his grip on the Republican party, his magnetic connection with millions of everyday Americans, his extraordinary ability to dominate every political conversation simply by existing. Like it or not, and many clearly do not, Donald Trump wields a level of political influence the Democratic Party can only dream of replicating. He may not be on the ballot in 2026, but make no mistake, his fingerprints will be all over it. Every candidate, every race, every narrative will orbit his gravitational pull. Which brings Stephen A to the most urgent, uncomfortable question the Democrats simply cannot keep avoiding. What exactly is the DNC actively doing to counter that influence and reclaim ground in 2026? Anyone? Anyone at all? >> Talk about how people are feeling about his performance because a CNN poll this week found that 52% of people disapprove of Trump's performance in office so far. So even though he may have won the general election by less than 50%, 52% disapprove of what he's doing. Okay. >> We're also seeing Republican voters at town halls opposing um his executive overreach, giving Elon Musk uh the shadow presidency. Um yet you said, quote, "Trump is closer to normal than what we're seeing on the left." >> Yeah. I was talking about why he won the election. When I made that statement, I was talking about that was before the election. I see. Right. So when during the election I said after I'm sorry in the immediate aftermath of the election I pointed out he was voted for because they considered him closer to normal than what the Democrats were spewing. That was what I said at that particular moment in time. Now obviously Elon Musk is an entirely different matter altogether. This man is not an elected official. He has been confirmed by the Senate or anything but he's got he's got an inordinate amount of power. I can given to him by Trump. I can understand how that could scare the living daylights out of folks and the approval ratings. Obviously we pay attention to that. But here's the bigger question. Who on the Democratic side are the American people pointing to and saying that's the person? >> And that question deserves a direct honest answer because when you actually survey the Democratic landscape, the outlook is genuinely troubling for the party who realistically can the Democrats field in 2026 that stands a fighting chance. AOC. She carries enormous energy and an undeniable media presence. But the same ideological baggage that sank Kla Harris follows her everywhere. Voters already rejected that brand of progressive politics loudly and unambiguously. Gavin Newsome. He arrives dragging the catastrophic weight of California behind him. A state plagued by homelessness, skyrocketing costs, and chronic mismanagement that unfolded entirely on his watch. Hardly the resume of a convincing national leader. Zoran Mandani. His unapologetic socialist leanings place him so far outside mainstream American political appetite that a serious national run borders on fantasy. The Democratic bench isn't just thin, it's arguably broken. And until the party confronts that uncomfortable reality headon, 2026 could deliver yet another devastating blow. >> Everybody said, "Let every let him do what he's doing so we can see what's going on." So, and now people are saying, "Well, what are you going to do as a Democrat?" Well, wait a minute now. Y'all didn't want to hear what we had to say as Democrats because that wasn't what people voted for. So now we have a clear definition and the American people will decide how they like what he's doing because now it's affecting in a way that people were not anticipating. People who didn't think they would be affected like the folks who work in the federal government, they never thought saw this coming. They never saw people can make omelets. Everybody doesn't need eggs. Ha. And there you have it. What started as The View's carefully orchestrated ambush designed to extract yet another round of anti-Trump ammunition ended up becoming something nobody in that studio anticipated. A lifelong liberal sitting at that table, methodically dismantling every argument thrown his way and holding a mirror up to a party that desperately needs to confront its own reflection. Steven A. Smith didn't just win that debate. He delivered a masterclass in honest, fearless political commentary that transcended partisan loyalty, the rarest thing in American media today. The Democratic Party stands at a genuine crossroads. The excuses are exhausted. The lawsuits failed. The rhetoric collapsed. The bench is barren, and the American people are watching, waiting for substance over spectacle. Whether Democrats absorb these hard lessons or double down on the same losing strategy will define their relevance for a generation. The clock quite frankly is ticking. And on this note, we draw the curtains on today's video. If you enjoyed it, then hit the like and subscribe to this channel for more videos like this. Thanks for watching and I'll see you in the next