Should the Democrats have won the House too? With Howard Wolfson
Most of the post-midterm commentary has been focused on how the Democrats pulled off a surprise win in holding the majority in the U.S. Senate, and only lost the U.S. House of Representatives by a slim margin. But former Clinton and Schumer strategist -- and current Bloomberg senior advisor - Howard Wolfson is asking something entirely different: why DID the Democrats lose the House? Suggesting that they could have bucked history altogether and won the House too.
Howard answers this question in a provocative piece he penned for The New York Times. While a red wave may not have materialized nationally, there was a red wave in New York State, the bluest of blue states. Howard thinks it has major implications for Democrats nationally.
Howard was the New York City Deputy Mayor for Government Affairs and Communications, under Mayor Bloomberg. Previously, he served as the communications director for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Earlier, he was Chief of Staff to Congresswoman Nita Lowey, Executive Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and worked on campaigns at every level of government, advising Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, and former Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Today he continues to work for Mayor Bloomberg, advising him on a number of political projects and overseeing education programs through Bloomberg Philanthropies.
Transcript
DISCLAIMER: THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN CREATED USING AI TECHNOLOGY AND MAY NOT REFLECT 100% ACCURACY.
[00:00:00] What is particularly infuriating to me as a New York Democrat is that had New York Democrats not screwed it all up, uh, the House Democrats, uh, would have actually, uh, stood a good chance of retaining the majority, not just losing a small number of seats, but actually retaining the majority.
Over the last couple of weeks, most of us have been focused on how the Democrats pulled off a surprise win in holding the U. S. Senate. And only lost the House by a slim margin. But former Clinton and Schumer strategist and current Bloomberg lieutenant Howard Wolfson is asking something entirely different.
Why did the Democrats lose the House? Suggesting that they could have bucked history altogether and won the House too. Howard answers this question in a [00:01:00] provocative piece he penned for the New York Times. While a red wave may not have materialized nationally. There was a red wave here in New York State, the bluest of blue states.
New York, delivering Republicans a narrow House majority, was not on anyone's dance card for these midterms. And yet, here we are. Howard thinks it has major implications for Democrats nationally. And I always like bantering with Howard about politics, as he's an independent thinker and an experienced political hand.
For some background on Howard, he was the New York City Deputy Mayor for Government Affairs and Communications. Under Mayor Bloomberg, previously, he served as the communications director for Hillary Clinton's first presidential campaign. Earlier, he was chief of staff to Congresswoman Nita Lowey, and he was executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
He's worked on campaigns at every level of government, advising Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, and former Governor Andrew Cuomo. Today, [00:02:00] Howard continues to work for Mayor Bloomberg, advising him on a number of political projects and overseeing education programs. Through the Bloomberg Philanthropies.
Howard Wolfson on lessons learned for the Democrats. This is Call Me Back. And I'm pleased to welcome my friend Howard Wolfson from Schumer and Clinton and I think even Nita Loewy pedigree and then up through the Bloomberg era where he currently works for Mayor Bloomberg to this day. Howard, thanks for coming on.
Thanks. I actually had lunch with Nita and Steve Loewy last week. For our listeners, uh, Nita Lowey was a long time, uh, Congresswoman from, uh, Westchester and was the, was a major player, not only in New York politics, but national politics on the, uh, House Appropriations Committee and was a force, uh, in, in New York politics, now retired.
So, how is she doing [00:03:00] actually? She's doing very well. Um, you know, she is enjoying her retirement. Uh, she had a, I think, a very long and distinguished career. Um, she and her husband, I think, recently celebrated their 60th anniversary, so they are enjoying their time together. I, I actually know her son a little bit.
Uh, who's, who's, uh, who's a terrific guy. It's a wonderful family. Uh, okay, Howard, I want to get into this. Uh, Because we have a lot to cover. Uh, the, the big headline coming out of these midterms, what, well there are several headlines, but one of them that I want to focus on with you today, is, uh, is Democrats over performed.
Democrats beat expectations, for a variety of reasons, history, meaning the president's party typically, Does quite poorly in the first midterm of of an administration, especially when the president has approval ratings that are comparable to what Joe Biden had, right? [00:04:00] Barack Obama, 2010 had had approval ratings close to what Biden have has now.
And Obama lost something like 60 plus seats. Democrats lost something like 60 plus seats in the house in 2010, 2018. President Trump had comparable approval ratings and the Republicans lost something like 40 seats. In the house in 2018, the first midterm of president Trump's term. And here we are in the first midterm of, uh, president Biden's administration.
And the Republicans are barely, barely north of 218 seats in the house after these midterms, when there was talk about winning 20, 30, 40 seats. Uh, they are, they are going to hang on to the House, they're going to win the House majority by a very narrow margin, and of course they're not going to win the Senate majority.
So the big news is, wow, Democrats completely, uh, beat expectations. Before we get into what happened in New York, you, you're like, hey, we're bearing the headline. The headline is the Democrats actually could have completely bucked history [00:05:00] and defended the majority, not let the Repub, not just let the Republicans win it, let alone by a hair, but actually won the majority.
So can you explain why that would have been so consequential? Well, yeah, you, you, you, um, explained it well. Uh, history suggests that the, um, president's party in a midterm election typically loses 24 house seats and typically loses four Senate seats. That's on average there are obviously years that are worse than that and some years that are better, but that's that's the mean Um, and if you look at joe biden's approval rating and you look at the What we call the wrong track, right track number in polling that we ask people, do you think countries in the wrong track of the right track, all of the indications would have suggested that the Republicans would have had a historically strong night and they did not.
Um, it looks like the Democrats are. Uh, very much on track to hold the [00:06:00] Senate. Um, they may even expand their majority in the Senate, depending on what happens in Georgia. Uh, and the, um, House majority for the Republicans is going to be excruciatingly small. Uh, it could be as few as three or four seats. So as you say, that's all good news for Democrats, significant overperformance, both by historical standards and by, I think the expectations that many people had going into the election.
What is particularly infuriating to me as a New York Democrat is that had New York Democrats not screwed it all up. Uh, the House Democrats, uh, would have actually, uh, stood a good chance of retaining the majority. Not just losing a small number of seats, but actually retaining the majority. And I explain in the piece that that, I think, is due to two reasons.
One is that the redistricting process in New York, that's the process whereby every 10 years, every state draws its congressional maps, [00:07:00] um, was royally screwed up by Democrats, uh, who significantly overreached, tried to draw an extreme gerrymandered map in defiance of a constitutional amendment that had just been passed.
Okay, before, before, before you, because I want to stay on number one before you get to number two, okay, so, so just, just to be clear, there are currently, before the, before the redistricting, right now in New York State, there are 27 congressional districts, right? Right. And that, because of the census, went down in this midterm to 26.
Correct. Okay, so, so New York is now going to have 26, uh, congressional districts, you know, a lot, a lot of people have been leaving New York State, uh, so big win for, you know, Governor DeSantis and Governor Abbott and, you know, governors of other, uh, shall we say, more, uh, economically friendly parts of the country.
Uh, New York is shrinking population. So, New York has 26 congressional seats and there [00:08:00] are currently 19 Democrats, 8 Republicans. You're saying that the Democrats should have been able to do much better than, um, the number of seats that they actually won this midterm. How many, how many did they actually win?
It depends. I mean, there are still a couple of races that, that need to be called, but we could be down as few as to 15 seats. So that means Republicans would have 11 seats. Now just, again, to be clear, these are, there are a bunch of seats in that number that, if you add them up, exceed The size of the Republican margin in the house, meaning, but for these seats going this way, New York could have been the difference in the Democrats keeping or losing the house majority.
Yes. Uh, another way to think about it is that there are six seats currently, uh, with the new map. So there were six seats that, uh, were up for election this past November in New York that were one. By joe biden, uh, all of those Six seats that were won by joe biden that [00:09:00] will be represented by republicans in the house of representatives There is no other state in the country that has nearly as many seats In that category seats won by joe biden in 2020 seats won by republican house members in 2022 Every single one of those seats in theory could have been won by a democrat And, and that was the trend elsewhere in the country where, where Republicans thought they had a shot at winning seats that Biden had won, not maybe the seats that Biden had won by double digits, but that Biden had won by kind of low, mid, high, single digits, which you typically have in a wave election when a lot of seats go, even seats that the, the, the president of the other party had won, the party not in the White House has a shot at those seats.
That didn't happen in this cycle most places in the country, but it happened in New York. Correct. So as we say, redistricting was a part of this. The New York Democrats who controlled the entire redistricting cycle here [00:10:00] in New York could have drawn a map that I think would have benefited New York Democrats but been somewhat more modest than the map that they drew.
Instead, they significantly overreached. The court struck it down and said, uh, you, um, have violated the state's constitution. By trying to draw an extreme gerrymandered map. So that was and that was the that was the just just so folks understand history So there was there was an amendment passed the voters passed an amendment 2014 yes to the constitution that said what that said that um, the um, There was going to be a commission that was going to uh, come up with a map Uh, that was not supposed to look at partisanship, that was supposed to try to respect, um, uh, logical geographical boundaries.
Uh, Republicans on the commission, Democrats on the commission, they were supposed to get together and compromise on a map. Uh, the commission didn't work, it failed, and, [00:11:00] um, the legislature then drew a map, and And why did the commission fail? Because they couldn't reach a consensus? They couldn't reach a consensus.
Because my, uh, my guess is that, that, The Democrats on the commission, this is a guess, total guess, the Democrats on the commission thought that, that they would punt it over to the legislature and the legislature would, would get a better map for Democrats than, uh, than would have resulted from a commission map.
That's just a guess. So, so under your, your guess theory, uh, under the theory of your guess or the guess of your theory. Uh, Democrats just sort of overshot and blew it up. You don't know this, but that's a theory. Would have blown it up and said, all right, it'll land in the legislature. And the legislature is golden for us because the Democrats have a super majority.
So they can get anything through. They can get anything through. And instead of sort of sitting down and saying, okay, uh, we have this constitutional amendment. It says that the map is not supposed to be gerrymandered. We really do want a gerrymander. So what's the sweet spot that we think the [00:12:00] court will uh will will bless, you know And instead they basically tried to absolutely maximize democratic performance with a map that was an extreme gerrymander The court looked at it and said, no, no way this is not.
Okay. So, so the, and the, the extreme gerrymander would realistically again, you never know until the election happens, but by your lights, there would have been about four Republican districts, right? That was their extreme gerrymander version. Yes. And, and then, and to your point, the court said, are you crazy?
Uh, this is, you know, uh, 26 congressional districts and four of them are, are set up, you know, to be advantageous to Republicans is totally unreasonable. And then the judge handed over to a special master to get to work on a more reasonable map. Correct. Now, just parenthetically, I think it's worth noting that, uh, cause you mentioned Florida and DeSantis.
The good people of Florida also passed a constitutional amendment, [00:13:00] uh, that essentially made gerrymandering, uh, illegal. Um, the legislature in Florida, the Republican legislature in Florida, also completely disregarded, uh, that, uh, uh, that amendment. And the court in Florida Basically allowed it to go through.
So in fairness, maybe the Democrats thought that, um, democratic judges in our state would be just as partisan as the Republican judges were in Florida to allow an extreme map to go through, but that's not what happened in New York. The flip side is fair, fair enough. The flip side is DeSantis won by 20 points.
Florida does certainly, in terms of recent electoral behavior, seem like much more of a red state. It's not to say New York isn't a very blue state, but Hochul's win was, uh, the top of the ticket was much more narrow, so it just seems like the congressional piece was really out of balance. Oh, there's no, there's no question.
I mean, to be clear, I, I, I think that, that New Yorkers, as I said, really [00:14:00] screwed this up in a number of ways. We've talked about redistricting. We can also talk about Some of the policies and the messaging. Yeah that were critical to the campaign But I just just to the point there are other states around the country that Florida be that were aggressive that were aggressive.
Yes. Yeah, fair enough So, okay, so New York so so the the map gets thrown out it gets redrawn In, in, in a way that puts many more parts of the state in play for Congress than otherwise should have been, uh, by your lights and certainly as we've seen by the results. And two, then, then let's get to the substance and, and policy agenda that you also think was a big driver of the election in this, in New York.
So in 2021 in New York, we had what were essentially our off year elections. Uh, we had a county executive race in Nassau County. And we had two district attorneys races in nassau and suffolk and those races are often a bellwether As to what will happen [00:15:00] in the uh in the midterm elections or a presidential election depending on when they occur so um 2021 you have these elections, uh long island.
It's a swing part of the state, but it is trending democratic uh, and the democrats lose the county executive's position in Nassau county and they lose both da races in suffolk And nassau all of the races hinge on the issue of crime And these are generally I get that they've been trending democratic, but historically they've been swing No questions swing counties swing, but but trending democratic.
Yeah. Um, okay, and so democrats lose all three of these races Uh, the republican case against the democrats in all three. Um Is uh based on crime Uh, and specifically the bail reform that was passed, uh, in Albany. So, um, uh, I, as a Democrat, uh, [00:16:00] look at those results and think, okay, voters are trying to send us a message.
Uh, this is pretty clear that voters in this swing part of the state are not happy with the direction, uh, of the legislature, with the fact that these bail reforms were passed, and with the growing crime problem. At the same time, Eric Adams, in the same election, Cycle, uh is elected mayor of new york and he's elected on a um message of Um fighting crime.
I mean, he basically says i'm going to come in. I'm a former cop I'm, also a guy who was um a victim of police brutality and I can lower crime Aggressively while also ensuring that we have respectful policing and to be clear he He not only articulated that message in the general election, which didn't matter as much he did it in the democratic primary It's a message that resonated in the democratic primary exactly.
So I thought okay Swing voters in long island are sending us a message. They're not happy about the direction of the state. They're concerned about [00:17:00] crime and Isn't this wonderful? We have a democrat winning in heavily democratic, new york uh on a message that basically um affirms, uh the importance of reducing crime, so there's a There's a, um, on the one hand, you, you have, um, uh, uh, an example of what happens when Democrats, um, don't contest this issue in Long Island.
And on the other hand, in the same election, you have a positive example of how a Democrat can talk about this issue and be successful. Um, so I thought, great, you know, the, the. The, the good people, uh, our, our, our legislature, uh, in Albany will look at this and they will course correct. They will recognize that they need to do something the voters have spoken.
Uh, and instead, um, they did basically nothing. They made some very, very, very minor cosmetic changes, uh, in the bail law that didn't satisfy anyone. Um, and, uh, basically, uh, either argued that crime wasn't a problem. Uh argued [00:18:00] that it was a problem, but it was a problem everywhere or argued that it was a problem But the bail reforms, uh, weren't the cause of the problem So the the the we had a substantive problem where crime is is up significantly in new york post pandemic Uh, and you had a message problem where democrats had no idea how to talk about this issue Um ignored, uh the clear intent and interest and will of the voters and so going into this election Republicans running in Long Island and the northern suburbs, uh, outside of New York City absolutely hammered Democrats once again on the issue of crime and bail reform and successfully prosecuted those races based on that issue.
So I want to quote from your piece, your Times piece. You say here, New York remains the only state in the nation where in setting bail, judges cannot take into account whether a person arrested in connection with a crime may pose a danger to the community. [00:19:00] Democrats in the legislature failed to offer any other alternative solutions to the problem.
So just, can you just dwell on that for one moment? Because I, I think this, the significance of that is sometimes lost on folks. New York remains the only state in the nation where judges can't set bail based on concerns about whether or not the person, uh, being convicted is, is a danger? That is correct.
Uh, so, um, if someone is arrested in New York for a crime that is not deemed bail eligible, Uh, a judge can, cannot otherwise say, Hey, I think this person is a threat for the following reasons and we ought to remand them, uh, into custody and set bail. And then, uh, and then can you just also explain how, how the cashless bail, uh, uh, law or provision works?
Well, there is an argument and, um, I think there is some, uh, I have some sympathy for this argument that [00:20:00] Your income shouldn't determine whether or not you spend a period of time in jail waiting for your case to be adjudicated if you are arrested. So, for instance, you know, the idea that if I go out and I commit a crime and bail is set for me, I will have the money to, um, post it, but if a, um, uh, someone down the block who doesn't have money commits the same crime or is accused of committing the same crime, uh, they get the bail set, they would not have the money to pay for it, and so people say that's unfair.
Um, so I understand that, I do have some sympathy, uh, for that. Um, but on the other hand, I think in New York what you have is a, is a situation where Uh, we have now a number of crimes that, um, are not bail eligible. So if you, supposedly, the definition is non violent crime. So if you go shoplift at a CVS, uh, and the police pick you up, you're released right away.
There, there, the judge has no ability to [00:21:00] Um, to hold you for, on bail, um, that, that's true even if, um, you've been arrested ten times, uh, you know, uh, uh, shoplifting before, you're a repeat offender, still can't remand you, uh, for bail, uh, or, or set bail, um, and it is also the case that, um, let's say, uh, you commit, you have in your past committed a violent crime, um, uh, or been accused of committing a violent crime.
Uh, the judge can't look at that as a, um, uh, uh, pretext for, uh, setting bail for a nonviolent crime that you are currently, uh, being accused of. Okay, so now you're saying, now crime is up something like 30 percent, uh, year over year. Uh, in New York City, not sure about New York State, uh, but something, something comparable, but the, but it's being felt much more New York City.
Why do you think it had such resonance in [00:22:00] Long Island and the northern suburbs, given that it was much more? It seems to be much more of a New York City phenomenon. We hear these horror stories about what's happening in public transportation, on the subways, you know, on the streets of, of Manhattan, on the streets of Brooklyn.
And yet, it's an issue that's resonating in, in Suffolk County and Nassau County, where, where Lee Zeldin, you know, won 9 points, 11 points, uh, in, in Westchester, even though Democrats, you know, won in, in parts of Westchester, but, but not everywhere. The issue seemed to be resonating. What, why was it resonating out there?
I think there are two reasons. I think in fairness, there are a lot of people who live in New York city suburbs who have moved from the city to the suburbs, um, for, uh, reasons, uh, that it's cheaper. Uh, they can pay lower taxes in some instances, uh, they can have better schools in some instances. To some extent, they have [00:23:00] moved or their parents moved or their grandparents moved because of a perception of crime in New York City.
So these are folks who I think are, are in some respects, particularly sensitive to the perception of crime in New York because it's one of the things that drove their decision not to live in New York. Um, but at the same time, you know, most of these folks or many of these folks either come into New York City themselves to work or to play.
So to speak, to go to dinner, to see theater, to go to a Knicks game, a Rangers game, Yankee game, what have you. Either they're doing that, or they know someone who does. Right, so, just because you live in Suffolk County doesn't mean that you're not engaging with New York City. Yeah, you may be in New York City every day.
Uh, or you may, or you may be in, you know, a couple times a month, or three or four times a month. Kid, your kids may come in on the weekends, this is a place where they want to go see concerts or whatever. So, the idea that just because, you know, you live in Rockland, or I know you weren't suggesting this, but the idea that you live in Rockland [00:24:00] or you live in Suffolk, you don't care about what happens in New York City.
You absolutely care about what happens in New York City. It is the engine of the region, and it is a place where either you're, either you're working in, your spouse is working in, your parent is working in, your kid is working in, uh, every day, or you're a place where you want to come and you want to see a movie and enjoy the, the advantages of the city.
So, you are sensitive to it. Right, and the media you're consuming about your daily life is, is largely being driven by, directly or indirectly, the New York Post. So the New York Post is, is, um, covering the hell out of this issue, the crime issue in New York City, and that, you know, if you're a local cable affiliate or whatever, various news outlets outside of New York City are making editorial decisions often based on what's in the New York Times and the New York Post.
And so the New York Post is hammering the issue of crime. A, you may be seeing the New York Post, because [00:25:00] you're commuting in and out of the city every day and that's what you're reading. And, uh, and B, the, the, the local news coverage you're getting outside of New York City, in, in these Long Island counties and, and northern, uh, and northern, uh, I guess northern suburbs counties, is driven by the Post.
Yes. I, I don't think there's any question that the Post, um, decided to go whole hog on the crime issue. Um, in the run up to the election, um, and Democrats, uh, spending a lot of time complaining about that. Um, my view is, uh, if you are running for office in New York, uh, you have to live with the New York Post, uh, and you have to learn how to deal with the New York Post.
Right, and if you don't have a New York Post strategy, it's like political malpractice. Correct. And the second point I would make is that You know, the editors of the New York Post are not out there committing crimes . They're, they're, you know, they're, they're not pushing people in front of subways. Uh, they're not, you know, they're not robbing people or shooting people.
So, um, you know, the, the post could, may [00:26:00] decide to focus on something or shine a spotlight, or even hype something, but they're not inventing it. You know, these are, these are crimes that are actually occurring. Yeah. Yeah. You say in your piece, the New York Post is highlighting this news. It's not manufacturing it.
Yeah, I, I should say, you know, to be fair, um, we talked about why somebody in, in, uh, Suffolk and Nassau would care about crime. Uh, there is another reason which I do not believe, uh, is the driver here, but I think in fairness, it should be said that there is also a racial component to this, right? I mean, you do have white voters in the suburbs.
Um, who may be particularly sensitive to questions around crime because they may harbor racial animus towards people they, they perceive as the, as the, the criminals. Um, and that is, that is not, I don't believe that that is, uh, that explains all of it, but I, I should mention it. You know, we, we do, we, we like to think we live in a colorblind society.
We do not [00:27:00] completely live at all in a colorblind society. And there are elements of that in this conversation. But as you said earlier, the data is the data crime had gotten worse. That's a disputable and, and the Democrats almost, it seems in the legislature and the state legislature and governor Hockel assertively chose.
Not to really do anything about it now. I presume I don't ask you to disclose the conversations you have with your Your fellow partisans, but I know you talked to a lot of Democratic politicians in the state and nationally So I'm sure you were venting to them before you vented in that New York Times piece after the midterms like hey guys You got to do something here.
Yes. What what was there? I mean what you lay out in the times piece is very reasonable Like, let me put it this way, the analogy I give is Mark Mellman, uh, the Democratic pollster, who you know are, you know, we know in common. He, he gave me this great formulation a while ago, uh, related to the issue of inflation, but, but it also applies to the issue of crime, which is the worst [00:28:00] thing a politician can do when voters are seeing and feeling something in their daily lives that isn't working is to tell them that they're wrong.
Yes, you, you, to, to, you, essentially to get into an argument with voters. About what their, what, about their experience. Correct. Like, it's like the analogy he gives is like someone goes to see the doctor, right? And says, hey doc, my shoulder's really hurting. I need some help here on, like, getting my shoulder fixed.
And the doctor says, no, your shoulder's not hurting. And you're like, no, no, no. I, I'm not here to debate whether or not my shoulder's hurting. My shoulder is hurting. Now, we can talk about the best way to deal with my shoulder hurting. And I'm open to your ideas. But I'm not, I'm not visiting you for you to delegitimize.
The pain I'm feeling, cause in my, cause I'm feeling pain. Correct. Getting into an argument with voters is a losing strategy because at the end of the day the voter always wins. They always win the argument. Um, so yes, as I said, I you know The the the democratic messaging strategy was to say crime [00:29:00] isn't a problem voter.
You're wrong. Crime isn't a problem um to say well, it's a problem, but it's a problem everywhere which to me is not an answer because So what if it's a problem everywhere? I live in New York. I want you to fix it. Uh, and then the, the, the, the, the, the question of whether or not, um, uh, yes, crime is a, um, uh, crime is a concern.
Uh, but, but bail reform is not the solution. Okay. So if bail or not the problem, if bail reform is not the problem, what is the problem? Come up with another solution. Um, so none of these from a messaging perspective worked. The legislature didn't fix the problem, didn't address the problem. And the reason is that the vast bulk of legislators in the state Senate and in the state assembly do not have to worry about running in general elections.
Their seats are overwhelmingly democratic. They only have to worry about running in very low turnout, democratic primaries. So therefore, and in those primaries, just [00:30:00] to be clear, not only the low, low turnout, but. In many of these primaries, not all of them, uh, in many of these primaries, the, the sort of harder ideologically edged you are, the more, um, competitive you are.
Yes. So if Yeah. That is certainly the perception among Democrats. Whether or not that's true or not, I think is an open question. Right. I mean, Adams actually may give lie to that, but you're right. That's the perception. Uh, that is certainly the perception. And so, um, uh, the Democrats in the assembly and the Senate are basically setting policy on crime.
Uh, for democratic primary voters, and they are not at all taking into account the fact that if you are running in a competitive district in Long Island in a general election, the policy set to appeal to primary voters in, you know, New York City don't work. They don't work. We, we, we saw that quite clearly.
They do not work politically. Uh, in places where people have to defend them in general elections. And this is [00:31:00] a, this is, you know, and by the way, I say this with Republican states too, I mean, you know, but obviously we're talking about New York now, which is largely a Democratic state. In these one party states You know, New York, California, um, you know, you, you, it, it, it creates for unhealthy politics across the board.
And your, your case study here is just a manifestation of it. Look, I see, I think that is true in New York with regard to crime. I think that's true in some of the red States with regard to abortion. I mean, they are passing these really extreme abortion laws. Uh, you know, um, basically, you know, anytime the, the, the, uh, abortion is banned at the first sign of a fetal heartbeat with no exceptions for life, rape, or incest, that is not anywhere close to the majority opinion, even in a place like Mississippi.
Um, but yet a lot of these states are passing these laws because again, they are one party states on their other side and they are appealing to people who vote in low, in low turnout primaries. [00:32:00] You know, you look at Republican governors, not to digress, but you look at Republican governors who did well this, uh, cycle despite, uh, what happened nationally.
DeSantis in Florida, Kemp in, in Georgia, Mike DeWine in Ohio, extraordinarily well. I think won by something like over 20 points. Um, abortion was not a big theme in their election. In fact, DeSantis in Florida, I know, A lot of people think he's a little too hard edged on culture warrior issues, but on the issue of abortion, uh, the bill would put like a ban on abortions up to 15 weeks and then kind of, you know, took the, he seemed to have, they took the issue off the table cause that, that's a position where a big chunk of the country is.
Yeah, it'll be interesting to see whether he can sustain that going through a presidential primary. Uh, okay. So, um, I want to move now to, first of all, so your piece comes out. I want to, I want to just to get your take on, on the national scene. And then I do want to ask you one question about Israel and then, and then, um, we'll wrap up.
But, uh, [00:33:00] before we wrap up on New York, what is the re, what has been the reaction to your times piece from Democrats in the state? A lot of people calling me saying that this is not something that they could get away with saying themselves, but they were glad that I said it. And you think they do have an opportunity to get their act together heading into 2024 And could actually win back some of these seats One of the things that actually has surprised me is that the governor hasn't used the results Um as something of a mandate, right?
So she won narrowly But she could say I won narrowly because the voters are looking to us to course correct on a couple of issues and try to use that as a as a way to compel the legislature to act in a more Modest moderate, uh direction. She hasn't done that. I'm surprised that she hasn't done that And she won by what just about five points, right?
Yep. Yep, which comparing to 2018 cuomo won by what 25 points or something? I mean significant democratic [00:34:00] underperformance You know the the we've talked a lot about and I think quite correctly, uh about the outrageous failures of the democratic party in new york one thing I would say about the republican party here is that Had the republican party not nominated a trumpist and an insurrectionist in lee zeldin Uh and instead nominated somebody more like george pataki that person might well have absolutely won right very well It was very winnable absolutely winnable.
The there were lots of democrats who I think would have been willing to vote for a relatively moderate Alternative to what they saw as extreme democratic rule in new york But Lee Zeldin was not a moderate alternative. He was not a safe alternative. He had disqualified himself based on his actions on, uh, the day of the insurrection and, uh, and around the, uh, the Trump impeachment, the corollary to that is that it's, it's kind of extraordinary that Zeldin.[00:35:00]
Did as well as he did in a state like New York, given his positions and what he did on those, on those particular issues you cite, which, which is also a reminder of the degree to which voters subordinate, at least some subset of voters, subordinate whatever they find abhorrent on these other issues when they just feel like their daily life is, at a very practical level, unsafe.
Well, I think that's true. Um, and I think it is a it is very much a sign that voters in new york are deeply unhappy with the Overreach and excess of democratic rule. They are not happy about the increase in crime here And and it's not just crime in many respects because you know murder is actually down this year.
Um, And we have many fewer murders here than, than we do per capita than most other places in the country, in many respects, it's a disorder problem. You know, it's sort of the homeless guy living on the block who will occasionally yell and scream and seem threatening it's that guy on the subway. [00:36:00] Um, who, you know, uh, you have to wonder whether he's going to go crazy in the subway car and you're trapped in there or, uh, he's going to push somebody on the tracks or what have you.
Um, there's just, there's just a sense that New York is, is out of control in a way that it wasn't, you know, five years ago or 10 years ago or 15 years ago. Uh, and that it's trending in the wrong direction. Um, and so it's both a crime and disorder. Yeah, so I had uh, a while ago A couple months ago. John putt hortz was on our was on our podcast.
We're comparing this period in new york city to the 1970s and the crime in the 1970s and he he made the an interesting observation that You know, in the 70s, the crime was largely fueled by, you know, economic deprivation, not, not justifying it, but just that there was, you know, people, there were some sub segments of the population that were stealing, right?
Stealing things, because, like, for economic gain, they were stealing things, which is a different kind of [00:37:00] crime. Then what we're dealing with, what you're describing right now, which is crime of insanity, which is like, like people like just on the subway platforms doing crazy stuff, not fueled by, Oh, I just got to grab that guy's wallet or I got to grab his phone, but I'm going to like randomly just push someone into the subway track for no gain to myself other than no gain.
I mean, it's all downside and that's just a break. That's a, that's a whole other level of breakdown that it's not. These aren't rational, calculated crimes, the crimes of insanity. Um, I think two things. One, um, you know, somebody who lived in New York during that period, as John did, uh, he is right that it is, that the, the level of crime is certainly very different, right?
I mean, the, the, the number of murder, we had over 2, 000 murders during that period. We will have somewhere in the range of 400 now. It is just, it's not comparable. Um, but I do think that, and I do think that there are some people in the city now [00:38:00] where you have, because the economy hasn't quite come back, uh, you do have significant unemployment where you do have some people who are committing crimes, um, because they are, you know, the, the, the, the, they're not jobs.
Um, but, but more to the point, I think the pan, we are still dealing with the impact of the pandemic. I think we all know in our personal lives people who have been, whose mental health has been affected adversely by the pandemic. And I think if you were somebody who was prone to some degree of mental illness pre pandemic, there's nothing in the pandemic that has made you healthier or happier.
And so you have a lot of folks who I think are just, uh, have been driven over the edge and are doing things that are very destructive to other people and self destructive. And it does not seem, more to the point, to our conversation, that the state has any real solution to how to help these people help themselves and make sure they don't hurt others.
Right? If, if, if we, if we recognize that there are more violent, crazy people [00:39:00] in New York. It seems incumbent to me, uh, on government to do something about that, to help solve that problem. And you don't see that leadership coming from Albany, that's for sure. Okay, so I want to, uh, I agree. I want to move to, uh, spend a moment on national politics.
So I do not want to get into, uh, You know, a parlor game on what's going to happen to the Republican conference with such a narrow margin. It's extremely stressful Uh, i'm just you know at this point just praying that you know, kevin mccarthy's not going to be the liz truss of uh, of u. s congressional politics uh, I uh, I think I think it'll hang on but it's uh, it's it's going to be uh, This stressful, stressful period with such a narrow margin because he has the aversion of what Speaker Pelosi had with the, with the Scott squad having much more leverage than I think any of us thought he'd have to deal with when, when, when we Republicans thought he would have a bigger margin.
I do think gridlock. I'm glad there's a divided government. [00:40:00] I'm like team gridlock. Uh, I know people talk about team normal. I'm for team normal too, but I'm also for team gridlock. I do think just slowing things down is, is good. Um, you, you and I may, may probably disagree on that, at least given some of the folks who will be, uh, who will be in charge in Congress, but we can, um, we can leave that, um, differing interpretation aside.
Um, what about presidential heading into 2024? If you would have told me Before these midterms like literally on the eve of these midterms if you had told me that coming out of these midterms Donald Trump would seem diminished And Joe Biden would look stronger and emboldened. I would have said, no way, because the Republicans are going to win big majorities in the House and Senate.
A number of the people that are going to win, for better or for worse, are people that Trump birthed, created, you know, endorsed, [00:41:00] uh, often over the objection or concern of, of Mitch McConnell and McCarthy. And, um, and he's gonna, he's gonna, but the Republicans are still going to win majorities. They may win big majorities.
And Trump, as he thought by planning his announcement of his presidential campaign days after the midterms, just assumed he would have this big momentum story. And instead, it was like, uh, it was, it, it, he just seemed, at least for the time being, diminished. And Baldwin, uh, and, and Biden gives this press conference the day after the midterms, basically saying, I intend to run in 24.
And he all but said, not in these words, But he all but said, you know, I was effectively on the ballot in 2022. This was the Republicans chose to make this a referendum on Joe Biden. And we exceeded expectations. And in fact, we beat his, the, uh, historical pattern precedent, as you and I discussed in the Senate, and we came damn close to the, in the house.
So why shouldn't I run in 24? [00:42:00] Uh, he, by all accounts, he is running in 24. Um, I think that, uh. Uh, in the last week, uh, or so the presence of Donald Trump on the campaign trail, uh, made the race in many respects, a choice between the MAGA vision for America and the Biden, uh, continuum in a way that was very disadvantageous to Republicans, right?
The election should have been a referenda on Joe Biden. Instead, it became a choice. Between biden and trump and biden won that one in 20 and he essentially won it in 22 Um, I think donald trump represents a completely unique threat to american democracy. I Uh, I very much hope that he is not on the ballot because should he become president Uh, I would fear for our future [00:43:00] in ways that I wouldn't if another republican were to win even though I won't want that republican winning um, but to be clear Donald Trump is not the strongest Republican candidate who, uh, can be nominated by the Republicans.
I think he, we have seen that now on several different occasions, that this is not a guy who actually does all that well, uh, when given the opportunity. He did win in 16, so that's a big deal. He lost in 18, he lost in 20, and now he lost in 22. Hold on, barely, let's just spend a minute on 2016. He, like, managed to pick Uh, uh, a lock that was like a once in a, I mean, he, he, he barely, he won with like, you know, tens of thousands of votes in like three states.
I'm not taking away from it. It was extraordinary. But the idea that it was a formula for future Republican success that can be easily recreated is not exactly, um, realistic. I would agree. Uh, but I just was [00:44:00] giving credit where credit is due. He did win. But since then, it's been a pretty long losing streak.
I mean he lost he lost in 18. He lost in 20 and now he lost in 22 So if you think that that's going to change, I mean, you know, uh, i'm not sure I would want it I'd want you gambling with my money, but uh, he's clearly running. Uh, he clearly has a base of support within the party And, um, I don't know how your par I don't know how your party adjudicates that.
Yeah, I would, I would just say, obviously, we got a long time to go. You've been involved in presidential campaigns. I mean, first of all, the amazing thing is that Trump has declared candidate. Usually candidates don't start getting into, like, you know, at the earliest, like, Labor Day of next year. But, like, probably later.
The idea that he's now just gonna be, like, hanging around for the next, you know, six, eight months before he is, like, obvious foiled. It's, it's just, I can't quite visualize it, like what is he, what is he going to do all, like, I don't know, it's, it's just hard to maintain [00:45:00] energy and momentum and dominate media cycles for that long stretch of time, especially when he doesn't seem to have a clear second act, you know, it's, it's, uh, it's, it seems to be a grievance campaign, which, which could change, obviously he can innovate, there's plenty of time to, but, you know, the, the conservative media seems to be getting a little tired, so they're, they're not covering him as obsessively as they used to so far.
I just. It's not clear to me what he, what he actually does for the next few months. Well, look, conservative media seems to have had its fill of him. Republican elites and donors have clearly had their fill of him. Question is whether Republican based voters have, and I guess we're going to find that out.
Now, Democrats, so, so Biden intends to run, um, I guess if he doesn't run, I find it, and I'm not an insider in Democratic politics, I see, I, I think. The experts are, are, um, are discounting, I think, underestimating [00:46:00] the strength of a Kamala Harris candidacy. I'm not saying she'll, she'll be formidable, but people are acting like she's not even going to be a factor.
It sounds like a, if Biden doesn't run, she plans to run B. I just don't, you know, we all kind of. You know, snicker about these little clips that fly around Twitter showing her sounding sometimes not like a little bit of an empty vessel, but I don't know, I, I, I can imagine her being formidable and difficult for other candidates in the Democratic primary field or prospective or interested candidates, uh, and ambitious candidates to, to challenge her.
I think it's going to be a pretty wide open field if Joe Biden doesn't run. Even if she runs? Yes, without a doubt. Wow. And so you think like a massive, you know, like, like sort of like, you know, 10, 15 candidates jumping in? Yes. And do you think it's generational where it starts to feel like these young up and comers?
Because that's what I'm seeing on the Republican side. Like it's, what is it, what is exciting to a lot of [00:47:00] Republican activists? And you see this in the polling, you see this in focus groups, and you just see this in anecdotal conversations. Is, you know, the Yunkins, the Tim Scotts, the DeSantis's, the, I mean I can go on, these, these younger, these younger next generation candidates contrasting with Biden and, uh, Trump are what is turning on voters on the Republican side.
Well, I think our last nominating process, you had, um, several candidates who were, uh, you know, late sixties into their seventies. Um, I think, uh, if Biden does not run. The only candidate who would be at that age, I think, would be Elizabeth Warren. My guess is that everyone else is, is younger. Alright, I want to pivot, before we let you go, to Israeli politics, which you normally don't, uh, engage in rank punditry on, but, uh, I think you have a unique vantage point, uh, right now, because, [00:48:00] probably unbeknownst to, uh, most of our listeners, Uh, except for those who read the acknowledgements in, um, in Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent memoir, BB, My Story.
Uh, if you, if you climb, if you make it all the way to the acknowledgements and you read the acknowledgements, you will see in the acknowledgements that, uh, Prime Minister Netanyahu pays tribute to Howard, our guest. Uh, and the reason, uh, he does is because, uh, Howard agreed to read Uh, while it was in production.
Howard and I talked about it at the time, uh, when, when he was reading it. Uh, I think Nothin Yahoo wanted a different perspective, uh, and a different reaction than I think many of the people who are reading the manuscript. Um, so, just curious, Howard, for your, I know, you, you, rarely someone thanked in the acknowledgements who's invited to read a book that they may disagree with large parts of.
Um, [00:49:00] but our, um, I, I mean that's just, that's rare and it's particularly for a guy like Netanyahu who's, who's, who I admire but is a, is certainly a polarizing figure both in Israel and the U. S. So I'm just curious, any observations or reflections based on that, that experience? You didn't really know him before, right?
You know I had met him a few times, I had, um, I had meetings with him a few times and Um, certainly knew him through our mutual friend, Gary Ginsburg, who helped him very much with this book. I guess I'd say a couple of things. One, I would really recommend to people that they read it, uh, and engage with it.
I think the first half of the book in particular is really a masterpiece. Um, I would recommend the first half of the book to anyone regardless of their views on BB's politics. Because it is a tremendous window into, uh, an incredibly interesting family. Uh, his family is fascinating. Uh, the early history of Israel, the history of Zionism, um, [00:50:00] uh, and the, the, the history of the Israeli military, uh, conflicts with, uh, with, with Arab states and with Palestinians.
So I think And he grew up, and he grew up, you know, in a home that was, obviously his father was this, this giant figure in, in the founding debates of the state, but also the, the people in his father's world, like the people he was growing up, like the, the adults that were around when he was a kid were.
Some of the most important figures in the in the formation of the state. Yeah, it is a I again I I think if you're if you are a progressive by the time you get into The period of the of the prime minister the prime minister periods you probably begin to get annoyed with the book But but certainly the first half of the book I I think is just really really interesting and can be read Almost regardless of your political inclinations.
Um, I still think it's worth it But I certainly would would recommend the [00:51:00] first half. Yeah, I mean you told me it's like it's like he's he Again, regardless of what you think of his views on certain issues. He's He's lived a political life that's on the scale of like, uh, in terms of, uh, to the degree He's been such a dominant figure in international politics and geopolitics and obviously the life of his own Country of like a he's like a Bill Clinton or a Thatcher or yeah, I mean he just yeah He is a what he is a world historical figure so in terms of my in terms of my involvement first of all I have I've had the privilege of, of reading a number of manuscripts, uh, and giving feedback, uh, in my, you know, in the recent years.
Uh, it is a, in my view, an enormous privilege to be able to do that. People are, are obviously very proud and proprietary of, um, their writing and their works. And when somebody is willing to share that with you for feedback, I think it's a, it's an opportunity, uh, and it's a privilege. And so I was, I've been glad to [00:52:00] do it for other people and was, and was glad to do it.
Uh, for him, um, there's a lot of, uh, in Bibi's, uh, political life that I disagree with. I'm really concerned, for instance, about the coalition that looks like, uh, is coming together in Israel. Uh, very concerned about that as an American Jew and as somebody who believes very deeply in, in the state of Israel.
Um, and a strong U. S. Israel relationship. Um, but on the other hand, I have to give, uh, Bibi an enormous amount of credit. The guy is an intellectual force. And he understands the value, at least in my, in conversations with me, of an intellectual give and take. I mean, he's not afraid to hear, at least in my conversations with him, dissenting views.
He wanted a, a perspective on the book that was not his, that was coming more from the center left. Uh, and he was willing to engage with my perspectives, uh, very respectfully. And he's a really, [00:53:00] really smart guy. And it was, it was a, an interesting and enjoyable experience to engage with him on the book. I do not agree with everything that he has done.
I don't agree with everything in the book. But I respect Um, at least, again, in terms of his willingness to engage with me, uh, his willingness to have that kind of give and take around, um, intellectual difference. All right. That is, uh, I didn't, I know I just sprung that on you. I brought you on to talk about New York politics and here we are, uh, ending with Israel.
You know, the, the, uh, so, uh, I appreciate your, your weighing in. I know you haven't spoken much about it, uh, publicly. Howard, we'll leave it there. Thank you for doing this. Thank you. And we'll post the times piece, uh, uh, in the show notes. I highly recommend, uh People read it, it's, it's a, you know, as I said to Howard before we recorded that it, it, I know him so I [00:54:00] know it was a little bit of a vent, but it's also a very succinct, you know, point by point, um, explanation of what actually happened in New York that regard, whether you're a Democrat or you're a Republican or you're just an observer, it's like a very succinct It's a very worthwhile read.
So thanks for the piece and thanks for, for joining the conversation. And, uh, I'll talk to you soon. Thanks for having me on.
That's our show for today to keep up with Howard Wolfson. You can follow him on Twitter at Howie Wolf, H O W I E W O L F. And you can find that piece he wrote for the New York Times. We'll post it in the show notes. Call Me Back, it's produced by Alain Benatar. Until next time, I'm your host, Dan Senor.