Jesse Watters Explains Why Radical Streamer Hasan Piker Isn't 'a Problem' for Democrats [WATCH]

Jesse Watters argued that political streamer Hasan Piker represents much of the modern Democratic Party’s ideological base during an exchange with Jessica Tarlov, pointing to Piker’s relationships with prominent progressive political figures and his positions on socialism, Israel, immigration and capitalism.

Watters opened his criticism by dismissing the attention surrounding Piker’s political commentary before arguing that Democrats cannot easily separate themselves from the streamer because of similarities Watters sees between Piker’s positions and those of Democratic voters.

“This guy talks about healthcare for 12 straight hours, he must be a genius because, wow. I don’t really know anything about the guy, but I know this: Hasan Piker is the Democrat base. That’s why they can’t distance themselves from him,” Watters said.

Watters then listed several political positions that he said connect Piker with Democratic voters.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

“Hasan Piker is a socialist. A majority of Democrats love socialism. Hasan Piker is anti-Israel. 80% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Israel. Hasan Piker’s anti-American. A smidge of Democrats are proud of this country. Most Democrats don’t think America is a moral force of good in the world. Hasan Piker thinks the country is racist. 90% of Democrats agree,” Watters said.

He continued by pointing to Piker’s positions on immigration enforcement, the border and billionaires.

“Hasan Piker wants to abolish ICE, the border, billionaires. So do Democrats. Where is the difference, Jessica?” Watters asked.

Watters also discussed Piker’s background, describing him as a Muslim who grew up in Turkey before coming to the United States. He used that background to frame his broader criticism of the Democratic Party and Piker’s political worldview.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“This guy is a Muslim who grew up in Turkey, okay? And he came here, and now he’s a That’s the American dream if you’re a Democrat. That is a great story. This is like this guy might as well be Paul Revere,” Watters said.

Watters characterized Piker as a “third-worldist” and “anti-colonialist” before alleging that his political objectives closely resemble those Watters attributes to Democrats.

“I don’t know. He’s basically, from what I understand, a third-worldist, an anti-colonialist who wants to take the American capitalist empire down from within. I mean, again, how is that different than most Democrats? They’re anti-capitalist. They want to cut America down to size,” Watters said.

His criticism then shifted specifically to immigration policy, with Watters accusing Democrats of intentionally destabilizing the United States through immigration.

“Yes, you do. You destabilize the country on purpose by bringing in a third-world invasion,” Watters said.

Tarlov pushed back on that characterization by connecting Watters’ argument to a controversial political theory involving demographic change.

“We’re back to the great replacement theory,” Tarlov responded.

Watters then turned to Piker’s relationships with prominent figures on the progressive left. He cited Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders while arguing that Piker has not been pushed away from influential Democratic circles.

“Your two most popular people in the Democratic Party, AOC and Mandani, are boys with Piker. They collaborate with the guy. They’re friends. They’re not disavowed,” Watters said.

Watters also pointed to Sanders, saying the Vermont senator had previously chosen Piker over longtime Democratic strategist James Carville when presented with a choice between the two.

“Bernie Sanders, your new kingmaker, loves Piker. He said if he had to choose between Piker and Carville, he said, I’m with Piker,” Watters said.

Watters concluded the exchange by arguing that Piker should not be treated as an ideological outsider whose positions can simply be separated from the Democratic Party.