The Art of the Sneak Attack

Summary

FIREWALL with Bradley Tusk
Episode: The Art of the Sneak Attack
Date: March 12, 2026
Guest: Chris Coffey, CEO of Tusk Strategies

---

Episode Overview

This episode finds host Bradley Tusk joined by Chris Coffey, CEO of Tusk Strategies, for an in-depth exploration of recent high-impact political campaigns, the mechanics and psychology of “sneak attack” political strategies, and the ongoing collision of politics and policy at the local and national levels. The conversation pivots from case studies in Texas and Delaware—that showcase aggressive, out-of-the-box campaigning—into wide-ranging commentary on American electoral dynamics, the future of party politics, and the ever-evolving policy landscape in New York and beyond.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Texas: Sneak Attack Political Strategy

(00:25 – 08:59)

• Background:
  Coffey and Tusk recount their role in two Texas races—particularly a Freedom Caucus primary where strategists, funded by climate interests, targeted Chip Roy for his anti-green energy stance.
• Impactful Move:
  Instead of focusing on climate in overt messaging (which is ineffective in a GOP primary), they framed Roy as “not Trump enough” using ads on Truth Social and Rumble—generally Republican digital spaces.
  • “The underlying strategy was he’s not Republican enough.” (03:42, A)
  • “Oftentimes the thing you’re upset about...probably will hurt you...So you’re, at the very least, a safe target.” (05:13, A)
• Ad Breakdown:
  • First Ad: “Not MAGA Enough”—attacked Roy’s Trump loyalty.
  • Second Ad: Tied Roy to voting against releasing Epstein files.
    • “We used a young woman’s voice to say that she doesn’t feel safe with Chip Roy in DC...” (06:27, B)
• Result:
  Roy dropped from 52% to around 39-40%, forced into a runoff—a 22-point swing.
  • “Our guy...Middleton...came in first and won by about 10 points. So it was about a 22 point swing...” (07:11, B)
• Larger Lesson:
  Political attacks work best when tuned to what really matters for the targeted electorate—not the attacker’s priorities.
• Further Reflection:
  The more Chip Roy blames outside groups, the more he reinforces their point (08:30).

---

2. Tusk Strategies: National Expansion & Perception

(09:20 – 12:04)

• Despite being perceived as NY-centric, the firm’s work is increasingly national (Delaware, Texas, with expanding presence in DC and California).
• Offices outside New York, especially DC, are key to accessing non-NY races and Democrat-aligned work.
• Internal debate: Whether emphasizing NY roots helps or limits national influence.

---

3. Latino Voters & Democratic Blind Spots

(12:04 – 14:18)

• The Talarico race: Focused specifically on mobilizing Latino voters—a key factor in the primary win.
• Discussion of chronic Democratic mistakes: Assuming voters of color will support them by default.
  • “One of the big mistakes Democrats consistently make is...that because they think they are so virtuous...anyone who has brown skin...is automatically for them...” (12:41, A)
• Growing recognition that Latino voters are a battleground, exemplified by Trump’s 46% share in 2024.
• Suggestion that Democrats and progressives must invest in outreach, not take support for granted.

---

4. Foreign Policy & Midterm Political Calculus

(14:18 – 18:53)

• Iran conflict: Prolonged involvement increasingly seen as a negative for Trump and GOP heading into midterms.
  • Tusk and Coffey debate the electoral calculus of staying involved versus getting out quickly (14:34–16:55).
• Discussion on the unpopularity of military drafts and the “Forever Wars”—and how Trump’s authenticity stands in contrast to the calculation of figures like JD Vance (17:29–19:27).
  • “Trump may be crazy, but he’s authentically crazy...No one accuses him of pretending to be something he's not.” (18:24, A)

---

5. New York City and State Budget Politics

(19:27 – 34:43)

• Deep dive into the fiscal crisis facing NYC:
  • Shrinking millionaire population, loss of tax base.
  • Reluctance to cut city workforce or reform pensions.
  • Political preference for taxing “the rich” versus broader-based solutions, and left-wing virtue associated with spending.
• Detailed hypothetical on the pain of property tax increases for the middle class.
  • “If you went to the voters and said you could pay more on property taxes or you can cut middle management that we don't need, who would pick the latter other than the union itself?” (29:16, A)
• Skepticism about the city council agreeing to raise property taxes, with preference for targeting upper incomes.
• Major pending initiatives: Universal childcare and property tax reform, plus the political implications tying services, taxes, and reelection chances.

---

6. Mayoral and State Politics Outlook

(34:43 – 38:50)

• Success formula for NYC mayoral reelection: Clean, safe, well-run city, and no major corruption or scandals.
• Tusk and Coffey agree that child care expansion could be politically significant, but possibly not sufficient without improvements in city services/quality of life.
• Quality of life (as perceived, not just crime stats) is critical; the “feel” of the city may matter more than numbers.
• Deeper demographic trends: historical shifts from Giuliani/Bloomberg to de Blasio/Adams to today’s DSA-influenced leadership.
  • “The last mayor, whether you like him or not, people thought he was [a crook]. And de Blasio came within a hair of getting indicted...” (34:43, B)

---

7. Upcoming Legislative & Congressional Races

(38:50 – 46:47)

• State legislative session likely quiet post-budget, with insurance reform and automation issues (e.g. driverless cars) looming.
• Expectations for Governor Hochul’s easy reelection in a Democratic-favored year; credit given for behind-the-scenes support of NYC.
• Congressional races as major bellwethers (especially as contests between moderates and progressives):
  • Dan Goldman vs. Brad Lander: District covers brownstone Brooklyn & lower Manhattan. Lander seen as strong in Brooklyn, Goldman in Manhattan.
    • “Dan will do very well in Manhattan. Brad has had no presence in Manhattan...Dan is now everywhere in Brooklyn.” (43:16, B)
  • Manhattan’s 12th (Open Seat): Key candidates Lasher, Borras, Schlossberg, Conway. Upper West Side expected to be decisive.
  • Brooklyn-Queens Race (Velasquez’s seat): DSA-backed candidate (C. Velasquez) vs. progressive Antonio Reynoso—fight over left purity.

---

8. The Limits and Future of Progressive Movements

(46:47 – 53:22)

• Discussion of DSA’s organizing strength—and its tendency toward exclusion and purity tests, potentially self-limiting.
  • “They’re so busy excluding everyone and applying purity tests that they just subtract themselves down to nothing.” (48:01, A)
• Low-turnout primaries aid radicals; moderates lack similar infrastructure or organizing “fun.”
  • “MamdanI made being a DSA member and being a field organizer fun. They would go out...thousands of people...this is replicable on the center. The problem is nobody puts in the time.” (51:29, B)
• Theorizing about four-party systems as an antidote to extremes—but entrenched actors and system inertia stand in the way.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Strategy:
  “The thing you’re upset about probably not only won’t help you in a primary, it’ll probably hurt you…” – Bradley Tusk [05:13]
• On NYC Left Policy:
  “The more you raise taxes on the rich, the more you actually end up increasing your budget deficits over the long haul...” – Tusk [21:35]
• On Authenticity in Politics:
  “Trump may be crazy, but he’s authentically crazy...No one accuses him of pretending to be something he’s not.” – Tusk [18:24]
• On Quality of Life vs. Stats:
  “People don’t live their lives based on CompStat. They live their lives on what they see...The city felt bad, even statistically it wasn’t that bad.” – Tusk [35:36]
• On DSA Organizing:
  “MamdanI made being a DSA member and being a field organizer fun…This is replicable on the center. The problem is nobody puts in the time.” – Coffey [51:29]

---

Final Thoughts

This episode offers an inside look at how real-world campaigners think about motivating and mobilizing voters, the evolving strategies used to exert influence under the surface of American political life, and the persistent tension between ideological purity and practical governance. In the face of demographic change, economic uncertainty, and deepening party divides, Coffey and Tusk see opportunity—and danger—for all actors willing to “play where the voters are.”

---

Key Timestamps

• Texas Sneak Attack Strategy: 00:25 – 08:59
• Firm Perceptions & National Expansion: 09:20 – 12:04
• Latino Voters and Democratic Failures: 12:04 – 14:18
• Iran/Foreign Policy & Midterms: 14:18 – 18:53
• NYC Budget Crisis Analysis: 19:27 – 34:43
• Mayoral/State Political Outlook: 34:43 – 38:50
• Congressional/Legislative Races: 38:50 – 46:47
• Progressive Movement Limits: 46:47 – 53:22

---

For further details, campaign ads referenced are available in the show notes.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Welcome back to Firewall. I'm your host, Bradley Tusk. My guest today is someone this audience knows really well, Chris Coffey. Chris, as you know, is the CEO of Tusk Strategies and haven't had him on in a while, and a bunch of new stuff is happening on the political front, so thought we'd bring him in. Chris, how you doing?

[B]

Good. Thanks for having me.

[A]

So, Chris, let's start with Texas. So you and your team played in two different races in Texas that both had good outcomes. Tell me kind of what you guys worked on in Texas and then generally speaking, what you thought the primary Texas said more broadly about kind of the national politics.

[B]

Yeah, absolutely. And you certainly were super involved in at least one of them. So one of them was an interesting. A group of climate folks who had felt burned by the Freedom caucus in. In D.C. and was looking for ways to enact some pain on folks that had been particularly crappy to the climate industry. And we took a look at the map and came up with Chip Roy, who was. Was in a race. Isn't a race for Chip Roy as

[A]

part of a group.

[B]

Part of a group.

[A]

Right. And the first.

[B]

The first one that we did.

[A]

Yeah, just. First one, just to jump in here, the idea would be no one in Washington, really, or in politics in general, takes you seriously if you're an interest group, unless they think that you can spend enough money to really take them out in their next election. And the climate guys who got destroyed in the big beautiful bill saw what the crypto guys did. When I say guys, I'm just using that as a saying generally for everybody. And the crypto guys, or industry, whatever it is, spent a ton of money and had a huge impact on the 2024 elections and. And then have been getting their legislation through and what they want ever since. And when the climate people came to us, what we realized pretty quickly was that in order to have enough of an impact on a race that the member feels it and they know it was from you playing your traditional general elections wasn't gonna work because most of the members they want to go after were Freedom Caucus members who aren't in competitive swing districts anyway. And what it also meant was it didn't matter if it was a member of Congress running for reelections, a member of Congress, or a member of Congress running for something else. So in this case, Chip Roy, who's a Freedom Caucus member from Texas and really did, in their view, more than anyone, to destroy the various tax incentives and grants and programs and credits that encourage people to use green energy. They thought that. Or we thought that going after him in the AG's race would be more fruitful. And now let me take it back to Chris.

[B]

Yeah. And we were. Chip was ahead maybe 15 points by the time. You know, takes time to raise money and figure out what the messaging is. So I think we move pretty quickly at the same time as they were raising money. So we probably had about $800,000, almost a million dollars to spend in the last three weeks of this race. And when we got in the race, Chip Roy was ahead by about 14 points. In Texas, if you get to 50, you avoid a runoff. He was in the 52, 53, 54 zone against a guy who was in the 38 to 37 zone. And then there was someone in third also. And, you know, it was really smart. We ran. We said, we used Truth Social, which is Donald Trump's sort of Twitter platform. We used Rumble, which is the Republican version of YouTube. And I think it was the first Democratic donor PAC to use either of those.

[A]

Right. So the underlying strategy was he's not Republican enough. Right.

[B]

He's not. He's not Trump enough.

[A]

Chip Roy is bad on climate change. How would that possibly hurt you in a Texas Republican primary? Right.

[B]

So he hadn't voted with the president. He's let the president down. He's let Trump down. And found messaging from Trump. By the way, Trump doesn't particularly like Chip Roy. It's unclear what he was gonna do in the race, but it wasn't like the President was gonna swoop in and defend the guy. And we really savaged him in three geographic areas in Texas. We didn't. We decided to lay off Dallas Fort Worth because it was too expensive. We went off three over the other areas, and that's where his numbers dropped the most among Republicans.

[A]

Yeah. And I think. So lesson number one of this is if you run a campaign against someone, it doesn't have to be attacking them on the issues that you care about. That may be why you're doing it, but what you then go after them on should only be what will have the greatest efficacy. And oftentimes the thing you're upset about probably not only won't help you in a primary, it'll probably hurt you, most likely, because if it would have helped you, then they probably wouldn't have done it in the first place. So you're, at the very least, a safe target. Right. No one voting in hardcore Republican voters in Texas are passionate about preventing climate change. So the first thing is you didn't worry about climate change. The second lesson is you went to where the voters are. Right. Which would seem obvious, but like you said, based on the press coverage after the primary, the reporters research found that this was the first example they knew of of a group that is not partisan in either particular way, but clearly Democrat leaning in the sense that Democrats are much more concerned about climate change than Republicans. Democrats passed the big green energy bill even though it was called the inflation reduction Act. Republicans took all those tax credits out. So if you're giving climate change is sort of Democratic moniker as a result, that doesn't mean you have to then talk in Democratic venues. In fact, if all you're doing is talking to the same people who already agree with you, you're just wasting your money.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

And so you guys, by deciding to go all the way to the right on both the message and the messengers, that was something that had not been done before in this context.

[B]

Sure. And what we saw is that the guy running who was in second, Myris Middleton, started doing the same thing and sort of came in and he was also spending. He also hit Dallas, but the numbers were much better out of the other three areas. And in those three weeks he dropped something like 20 points. It was a 20 point, 22 point swing.

[A]

So the first ad, we ran two ads. The first one was entitled not MAGA enough. And like you said, it was hitting Roy not being sufficiently supportive of the President. What was the second ad?

[B]

The second ad was an Epstein ad. He, Chippewa voted against the release of the Epstein files. And we used a, a young woman's voice to say that she doesn't feel safe with Chip Roy in DC and we use that from, I think Wednesday to Tuesday in the AG's office. In the AG's office. I'm sorry. Yep. We use that from Wednesday to choose the last five, six days of the race. So we're still trying to figure out. Exactly. We're trying to get the best possible numbers on whether that one was as effective as the first one. It was a great ad, whether it was, whether how much it got done in that five days. But he really dropped over the last two weeks.

[A]

We'll put the ads in the show notes so that people can see them. But ultimately then. So now take us through what were the results after the primary was over.

[B]

So he's. They're in a, they're in a runoff. But, but our guy came in for our guy, I mean Middleton, who's probably worse than Chip Roy. They're both terrible. Middleton Came in first and won by about 10 points. So it was about a 22 point swing when we started. Chip Roy was at 52. He ended up in the 39 to 40 zone and Middleton was up by about 10 points. But. But they're going to run off.

[A]

How do you assess. Clearly it can't be the $800,000 and the two digital ads that we. That led to a 20 point swing in and of itself. So how do you figure out we clearly had some impact. I don't think it could have been just us. So how do you figure out what was us?

[B]

So I look at the geography of where we were doing things and that, and those three areas that we targeted clearly had the best. Dallas, which is the biggest Republican area, was the strongest for Chip Roy. Now, of course, Chip Roy's district is closer to Dallas, so there's a bunch of different reasons for that. And Middleton came in with a lot of the same messaging over the last couple weeks and he spent. He was also spending in big money, so it's hard to know exactly. And we're trying to get better data from the Epstein ad, for instance. But what is clear is that he was ahead by a lot and he ended up being forced into a runoff and is now, by the way, he's tweeting about our thing. He's now tweeted about us like four or five times. So clearly he feels like this was a thing that resonated.

[A]

Which. And by the way, what is also great, because if the underlying point here, Chip Roy is meant to be a scalp, but he's meant to be effectively, in some ways, he's kind of collateral damage to the climate change industry's larger goal of showing that if you mess with them again, you're going to pay a real price for it. So inadvertently, the more Chip Roy blames this group for his fate, the more he actually reinforces the message they care about in the first place.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, we see this all the time. We ran that race in Delaware for governor and the woman who we were running against coming complained about our client every day. Every time she did it, it was like validation and made him spend more money. So it was like. But there must have been a reason she was doing it. And Chip Roy probably thinks he can blame the Democrats are coming in to get me and whatever, but it helps us as well.

[A]

Right. So we talked about Texas and we're talking about the tall Rico race as well in Delaware. I think the perception is that tough strategies work is mainly New York. And I Think the perception of you specifically, just because you literally were born into New York polit, is that. But then you just mentioned two places in America that are a. Both very different from each other and very different from New York. And one's a blue state, one's a red state. How would you actually categorize the overall work the company does, but also corporate campaigns and legislative campaigns and policy campaigns,

[B]

Certainly true corporate, nonprofit work. We're very national. I think about a quarter to a third of our work is New York based. So electorally, we get a lot more attention despite, by the way, despite the fact that Cuomo never paid us anything. Like we got a bunch of attention for Cuomo. Obviously, we got attention. We did Andrew Yang's race.

[A]

Negative attention as well.

[B]

Negative attention. So, you know, New York reporters tend to think of us as New York political operatives, and I'm proud of that title.

[A]

But you and I are both, as well as Eric and Chantel, a lot of the team are sort of personally engaged in New York politics beyond our own economics. Right. You and Chantel did Cuomo. I'm constantly messing around with things like brokers fees and scaffolding laws and illegal weed shops and whatever it is. And so everyone's got their stuff. Do you think from a business standpoint, we do ourselves a disservice by allowing that perception as opposed to talking more about our work nationally, or do you think that that perception gives us disproportionate influence in New York and that helps us win in those 25 to 33% cases that we're doing in your project?

[B]

It's a good question. I mean, by the way, we never had. We wouldn't have had Talarico and Chip Roy. And for Talarico, we helped a little bit on his independent super pac, but we never would have had those before we opened a D.C. office that does focus more on sort of Democrat things. We would have had Chip Roy. I think we probably would not have had. We certainly would not have had talarico. Super.

[A]

Yeah. Delaware. Long before we opened up a D.C. we had Delaware.

[B]

Yeah. A New York client that was annoyed with Delaware, for sure. But. But no, I just mean I think that having other offices and other folks with other backgrounds, you know, Cristobal Alex, who runs our D.C. office, is like on the DNC and certainly, like, has helped us with some especially Democrat specific things that I think otherwise would have been a little bit harder. I don't know. I don't know the answer to the first question, but I think, yeah, I Don't know.

[A]

In California, I think you and I both agree, is an area for. We have an office already, but for

[B]

real, there's certainly more there, and we'll see what happens. This governor's race, too.

[A]

Right. That's something that we are, you know, engaged in. So on Talarico, our role on the IU is specifically focused on Latino voters, which the math says was a meaningful reason why he won the primary. Okay. But now let's fast forward to the general. We don't know who the Republican's gonna be yet. Either way. Do you see a world where Talrico can win that seat? And if so, one of the big mistakes Democrats consistently make is they assume when I say Democrats, this case, I mean progressive, affluent white people, that because they think that they are so virtuous, that they are only out there fighting the good fight for people less fortunate than them. That therefore anyone who has brown skin in any way, whether you're African American, Latino, Asian or anything else, is automatically for them. Because don't they know that these nice, smart, rich white people flew into Yale, know better, and they're out there advocating for their. What they should believe. Do you think that given that Democrats fucked it up so badly in 24, there will be a way to. For us to sort of make sure they're not taking Latinos for granted in 26 in the Talarico race, or do you think that.

[B]

I think people have.

[A]

Are we gonna have to convince people to focus and spend money and time and attention on Latinos, or they take it for granted, especially because he's Latino?

[B]

Well, no, certainly on Latinos. Forget it. I think there's going to be a ton of money spent on Latinos. I think the better question.

[A]

And you think 46% of Latinos voting for Trump got that message?

[B]

I think that message. I think they. I think they were freaking out about Latinos in 24. I think you could argue black.

[A]

They didn't get it right, whatever the fuck they did.

[B]

Well, I think. I think. I think the. I think the messaging. I think Biden, I think where we were made 24 a pretty tough. A pretty tough field. No matter who was the candidate, no matter what they said. I think the race was over the day Donald Trump got shot in the air. I think the race was.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And now I think hopefully the same is true on the other side. I don't know. Like, Democrats should really, really, really do well in the midterms now. What does Iran mean? I think. I think there's some open questions. Here, like what happens?

[A]

Well, let's, let's talk about that a little bit because I know you're going to have a podcast, right, for this we talk about as well. But it seems to me that pretty soon, whether it's in a week or two weeks or three, but I can't imagine much longer than that from there on out. Iran is only a negative politically for Trump and the Republicans. Right?

[B]

It might be close to that now.

[A]

I think if you get out pretty soon, it probably isn't even a positive. It's just not a factor in November one way or the other is my

[B]

guess if you can get oil prices down.

[A]

But yeah, yeah, but they, by then they should if you're out by now. But if, if, if it keeps going anyway. Right? It's just a net negative for Republicans in the midterms now.

[B]

I would think so. I mean, I think it's, I think it's a good, I think some of the unknowns are always hard to, to, to guess. Like, what does this mean? Does he get any credit for taking this guy out? Do people. I assume the answer to that is no. And certainly, you know, there is a whole Republican branch out there, a MAGA branch that is like, wait, we ran against Forever Wars. We ran against, you know, Charlie Kirk was out there before he was, the day before he was killed saying, watch out, D.C. is trying to get us back into Iran. And so I do think there's a whole SEC now that I assume they come home. Like, I don't know. But there's a whole segment of Republican voter, maga, MAGA voter that wants no. And you see right now, you see Marjorie Taylor Greene and Megyn Kelly over the weekend being like, what in the world are we doing?

[A]

And also, if the one thing that does seem to truly motivate Trump is the stock market, and if the stock market is getting crushed because of oil prices, even though I know OPEC's trying hard to mitigate that a little bit, that does seem to be a huge motivation.

[B]

You can't get the ships across with OPEC could do whatever they want. You can't get the oil here. The fucking strait is closed. What are they going to do?

[A]

Right?

[B]

So by the way, and once those refineries go off, like, forget it. You can't turn the refineries off. Refineries have to keep going. It takes months to get them back on.

[A]

So I think then we're in agreement that for a lot of reasons, so continuation meaningfully is bad for Trump and therefore logically, he should get us out of there pretty quickly. Although the problem of course it's Trump. So who the fuck.

[B]

Who the fuck knows. I think I'll make the. I would make the opposite case just for a second to say if it could be made. If he can run on. I got these guys out, I got Maduro out. The world has changed and no one's going to mess with the United States again.

[A]

I don't think so. I mean maybe you pick up some Colombian and Venezuelan voters, but neither of those matter meaningfully. Maybe in a Miami race, but there's no swing race in Florida. So like I just don't know where you're going to pick up enough voters and then like where are the Persians are like in California. That's not going to really help you.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So I just don't see. I don't. In theory, yes. And maybe if it was, you know, Mexico or some country that had lots of people all over the US in different parts but I just don't see how those two communities. I don't think. I think Americans care about foreign policy. When either people they know are being are dying on the ground somewhere or if products and goods they rely on are either not available or cost more, they know it's that.

[B]

By the way, J.D. vance talked about a draft yesterday. Gotta get the draft. Gotta get that draft back. Nothing's more popular than sending a bunch of teenage kids off to die.

[A]

The only thing that would be interesting to me if he did that would be I really do believe in a mandatory national service of some kind of which the truth is the military doesn't. I also don't really get what he's saying because so much of our military now is digitized in ways that require fewer people, not more. And that's before anthropic fight with no,

[B]

but I think side I think a draft would be a good thing.

[A]

For who?

[B]

I think it would stop us from sending crazy. I think if no one cares because

[A]

it's not there if we have a draft it would actually. Yeah, I don't think we're. What was. I mean Afghanistan, which by the way I still give Biden credit for having the balls to get us out of Afghanistan even if the actual pullout was bungled.

[B]

Agreed.

[A]

I mean there aren't that other than Afghanistan and Iraq which were legacy of 911 there's a big other there. Okay. But 911 did happen.

[B]

But Iraq had nothing to do with it.

[A]

No, but Bush paid. There's a clear political lesson from it. Right.

[B]

If Bush was sending his kids. Do you think he would have.

[A]

But it was still wildly unpopular, even without that. Cause it went on for so long. So I don't know. I think what we're also just seeing is that Vance has bad political instincts. And what he's almost guaranteed to do, from what I can tell, is try to be Trump part two and imitate him in every way. And it will be a disaster. Because when you're not authentic. Look, Trump may be crazy, but he's authentically crazy. Right? He is who he is. No one accuses him of making, like, pretending to be something he's not.

[B]

I always say it's the appearance of authenticity. I'm not sure if he's actually.

[A]

No, I think he is, because I don't think he's capable. I mean, a lot of it's lies, but nonetheless, I just. I think he's.

[B]

But he would change his mind on it.

[A]

But that's just how he is. Like, I think he. He is the way he is.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

Where Vance, I think, is just making the shit up to what he thinks will benefit him, that never works. I even think that if it's between Vance and Rubio. While I see plenty of ways that Rubio will fuck it up, too, meaning the nomination, I do see him at least having the savvy to not try to imitate Trump so blatantly that it actually looks bad, not good.

[B]

Yeah, I think Tucker would win in

[A]

that one, but we'll see. Maybe. Maybe. Who knows? All right, so then let's flip over to New York, where there's not an election at the moment that we're working on, but obviously we are engaged in a lot of stuff in Albany, especially in observers of a lot of stuff everywhere. You were quoting Politico today about the mayor's budget. If you don't mind, break down for the audience, especially those who aren't kind of as focused on New York as you and me. What is the budget situation? What are. What's Manami saying? What's he doing? What are his options? And then try to fast forward kind of how you think it plays out.

[B]

Sure. So the city budget, unlike the state or the federal government, has to be balanced every year. It can't be in deficit. Can't be. Can't be. Has to be zero.

[A]

Can I ask you a quick question on that? And this question would be fair for both New York, but also every state government.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

That has the same legal requirement. Like when I did Illinois, we were. I mean, you're never exactly imbalanced because it's just a piece of paper. Right. And revenues come in and funding goes out.

[B]

But you have to have money.

[A]

Right. So the real number is within what of a balanced budget? Like 20%? 10. Like I was trying to figure out what's the actual number.

[B]

I was gonna say 10, but I.

[A]

10. Yeah. Okay, right. I know for a fact it's not zero.

[B]

Right, right.

[A]

So, okay.

[B]

And we've, you know, the spending goes up in New York every year. A lot of it is fixed costs like retirement and benefits for city workers and. But whatever. The last Bloomberg year, I think it was 69 billion. So that was 2013 and this year, and I don't actually know, it's like 120 billion.

[A]

Would you say there is a true belief on the left that spending money in their mind is the equivalent of solving a problem, and somehow in their mind spending money is equivalent with virtue?

[B]

I'll pass on that. But I do.

[A]

I would say yes to both.

[B]

But I don't know that. I don't know in this case. There are things that are there fault, but the budget is the budget. So, like they.

[A]

Well, but we wouldn't be. Hold on, let me.

[B]

Eric Adams was there and cut. And was a Moderate and cut $0.00 and $0.00 for the last year.

[A]

I'm not just saying Eric Adams, but I'm saying this. There are two overall things that the left has done that have got us into the situation. Number one would be in 2012, according to the Citizens Budget Commission, New York City had 12.7% of America's millionaires, and today it's 8.7%. Now, I know there are more millionaires because real estate values just make more people on paper millionaires. But overall, the CBC would say that had New York maintained its share, the city and state budgets would collectively have $13 billion a year more to spend, which would wipe out the deficit entirely. So the irony is the more you raise taxes on the rich, the more you actually end up increasing your budget deficits over the long haul, not decreasing them. So that's problem number one is that they drove away people with all of the efforts to keep raising taxes and then all of the efforts to sort of make it seem like public safety doesn't matter and quality of life doesn't matter. So that's reason number one that we're in this mess. And reason number two would be just the endless spending and the unwillingness to say no to labor, to community groups, to advocacy groups, and in some ways this inherent belief that if you spend more money that's just a good thing, regardless of the outcome. I mean, Bill de Blasio massively increased the size of the city workforce with zero evidence that any of it. I mean, our school system in New York City, we spend about $40 billion a year on it, and four out of every five kids are not college ready. So can you imagine if you had a factory and you made a product and four out of every five warrant couldn't meet what you promised the buyer would meet?

[B]

Yep. He also said then you would just

[A]

throw billions more at it.

[B]

Yeah. He also started pre K, which. Which you need more people to do. But yeah, I don't disagree.

[A]

I'm not saying it's all bad, but. But he definitely. But that those aren't even counted as city workers.

[B]

So I think the fix, the fixed cost of the budget needs major reform. The fixed cost, which is like, it's not the people that. The money that they're spending on giving the library and the community group more money is not nothing. And they could cut it, but it's. It's like a drop in the bucket. That's not where the money is. The money is. You have to get in there and fix like pension reforms and people retiring when they're 59, which was written in 1942. And now people work longer, live longer.

[A]

Do you see the politicians we have today?

[B]

No, but by the way, Mike Bloomberg couldn't do it either, and he tried to do it right. And no, these guys certainly aren't going to do it. The one thing Mamdani wants to do that I think should be done, that Mike Bloomberg also wanted to do but couldn't do was property tax reform. And so instead, now the mayor is talking about raising property taxes, which I'm lost on the why on that. Because it's deeply unpopular with everybody.

[A]

Wasn't the Y just a threat to try to get his income taxes increased in Albany?

[B]

Sure, but then they're gonna blame him. My trainer, I use, I try to talk to different people from different economic backgrounds, different racial backgrounds to sort of get a sense of what people. No one is gonna blame Kathy Hochul because Mandani raised.

[A]

No, but maybe you're. I don't know your trainer's background, but if your trainer is not self identified as a, you know, super progressive, Maidani might be just solving for the very small group of people who put him in office in the first place. And if he's not worried about anybody else, then your trainer doesn't really. If they think, oh, that was so brilliant. Zoran. Because now you've really forced your hand. Even if he's unsuccessful getting taxed, like for the far left, I would argue raising taxes on the wealthy is not a means to an end. It is the end.

[B]

Yeah, right. I think that's the.

[A]

And so as long as they see him doing everything he can to achieve that end, they're okay.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And that's why he did it.

[B]

I think he also needs some money. Right.

[A]

What's the deficit today?

[B]

It's a two year. So it's much bigger. In the second year, his original number was 12.5 billion, which is. And then they revised it down to

[A]

7.5 where they fire the 5 billion Wall street meaning they just said that revenues are higher than expected.

[B]

Much higher than expected.

[A]

And do you believe that or. No.

[B]

That is what the city council always thought. The city council always thought that his numbers and were too, too, too, too gloomy. But Even if it's 7.5, it's, it's, it's, that's not nothing. The one thing they have not done, which I don't totally understand, they haven't gone out and said, all right, everyone cut 3%. All right, let's find the 5% cuts that we know you can find 5% of any budget anywhere that could be cut a little bit without, you know, not hiring.

[A]

$116 billion budget, 5% cuts get you pretty close.

[B]

We've skipped the. Now he said he's identified like a chief savings officer in every agency and he's asked them to.

[A]

That just cost more money so far.

[B]

Now you've hired more people, but instead of just saying OMB is going to find 5% or 3%, whatever the number is, cuts across the board. We've skipped that part and we've gone right to like, if we don't raise

[A]

taxes immediately because again, the goal is not to balance the budget. The goal is to punish the people who are.

[B]

Yeah, but so if he, if he actually raised property taxes, which is hard to do. The city council has indicated.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, you know the council. Well, do you see this council doing it?

[B]

I don't see the council doing.

[A]

Because ultimately if you raise. Just for the listeners, if you raise prop. If you raise income taxes on the 1%, politically, if you're a Democrat politician, there's no cost to you. Right. There is cost in the sense that we have already seen that high income earners leave New York. And so your budget, which is what's needed for poor people to have Medicaid and food stamps and public housing that gets cut and there's less money. But if you don't actually care about the people you serve and you just think your politics, then it's totally fine to raise taxes on the 1%. You raise property taxes. So imagine that you have a constituent where the couple between the two of them make $125,000 a year. One is a nurse and one is an electrician or whatever it is. And they live in a house that he got from his grandparents originally his parents and now him that is assessed at 2 point was is currently assessed $800,000. They do a true assessment of 2.2 million and their taxes go up $4,000 a year. Three, let's call it $3,000 a year. At 125 grand, you're probably paying like all in realistically 30 to 35% tax rate. So let's say that you've got 90 left after taxes. That's not a lot of money to live in New York City, especially if you have kids. And if $3,000 of that, which is effectively, if, if you make 90 grand, then $3,000 is over 3% of your after tax budget to spend and you have to spend it giving it to the city. You're probably not a regular primary voter, but guess what? You're going to be in the next city council primary. And so I just think Julia Manning and her members are too smart to do that unless every cut has been thoroughly explored and Right.

[B]

And even some of the progressive voters, some of the progressive members in the council are like, wait, what? We're not doing that.

[A]

So throw more thing on this. Yep, it I. And again, I'm a tech guy. I'm not totally objective, but I know for a fact that software, AI software does exist for things like procurement or licensing, permitting, compliance, data management facilities, all, all of these middle management functions that clearly in a 330,000 person workforce have 30, 40, 50,000 people doing them right now.

[B]

They don't want to cut city workers.

[A]

It's about, but keep in mind every 10,000 city workers is about $1 billion. I know, but, but if you went to the voters and said you could pay more on property taxes or you can cut middle management that we don't need, who would pick the latter other than the union itself?

[B]

Yeah, I don't, I don't disagree. I just, it's not going to happen.

[A]

Okay, but would you raise property taxes ahead of that?

[B]

No. They'll figure though, I mean, I think what is likely to happen is that Albany will Do something on folks who make more than a certain amount, and they'll raise taxes. I think the legislature has said we're going to do something. It'll be something much smaller than you. Right now. The DSA wants. It's not even a millionaire's tax. It's couples that make more than 500,000, which is like. Well, now we've really expanded the playing field, and it's a big number. It's 2% on the city tax is like, you know, that's 30 or $40,000 a year on your $500,000 or 20

[A]

or 30,000 if you're going to do that. I believe I might be wrong, but that the people who hate the 1% the most are not the people in the 80th percent. They're not even thinking about the 1%, right? They're thinking about paying the bills. And that's it. It's the people in the second decile who went to good schools and were close enough to the 1% to taste it, but not enough to get there. And because they didn't get there, their two choices are to accept that they didn't have whatever it took or to say everyone who did get there is corrupt.

[B]

But those people are the ones whose taxes are gonna go up. I think if you're a couple, that makes 500,000.

[A]

Well, I was gonna say. Well, I was gonna expand it to that. So if the people in the second decile are a. The ones who posture publicly as the most virtuous, although from what I can tell, their virtue doesn't extend beyond tweening, and they care so desperately about helping the less fortunate, then let's apply the tax to everyone in the top 20%. Yeah, great. Then now all of a sudden, you care so much. Put your money where your mouth.

[B]

There's certainly something that's politically popular with going after billionaires. And you see people on the far left do it all this billionaires, this billionaires. So there must be a reason to do it. I just think none of this surprises me. This is People elected the biggest election we've ever had in New York City, and people elected someone who said this is what he was going to do. I am not surprised by this. Like, I don't know. Like, it's like, the last time I was on this podcast, I watched Jamie Rubin, who is here. I love Jamie Rubin, who is like, they're never going to raise weight.

[A]

As someone who's on a Chris Jamie text, there's a lot, a lot of disagreement, Respect with disagreement.

[B]

Lots of lots.

[A]

Okay, so let's say that Zoran.

[B]

But that's what he said he was going to do.

[A]

Right.

[B]

He got elected by a big, big number.

[A]

Okay, so let's say, let's say voters,

[B]

general election voters, big number, biggest election we've ever had. Voted for the guy.

[A]

Okay, so let's. So fast forward four years now, taxes are up on everyone that makes over half a million dollars. So they want to do that. But yes, fees are up. City spending is.

[B]

I don't know if fees are up. They're trying to. Well, I think, I think what they're going to do is the people that park for free right now, there's a new study. If you have free parking right now, they're going to figure out a way to meter that.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So some fees are up, but they're going to, they're going to try to slash fees on small businesses. Slash. If you pay 34 when you pay your rent, because there's a finder's fee, they're going to slash that. They're going to look for things to slash on, which is good.

[A]

That's affordability. Right. That's good. But overall, if, if you're, if you're making half a million dollars or more and you're paying more money one way or another.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

And it's almost a guarantee that they are not going to do anything to make city services more efficient and effective. So they're going to somehow figure out a way to spend more money.

[B]

Well, they're going to do child care. They're going to get child care off the ground. So they've already gotten, you know, x thousands of folks that are now going to be able to take your two year old and drop your two year old.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So that's a good thing that they have. Right. But let's say that city services, crime, quality of life is where it is today. Right. Which I think is, which is maybe a little too optimistic because I think he's doing everything he can to drive Jesse Tish away. And I think that will, the replacement will almost likely be someone far to her left, which means crime probably will go up. But let's assume that somehow that they managed to avoid that. So the city looks and feels like it does today. People are paying more money and there's some benefits like child care. It's probably enough to get them reelected, right?

[B]

Yeah, I would think so. I mean, child care is a big deal. So if you actually, what is unclear,

[A]

people feel the benefit of it fast enough.

[B]

Well, if you have a two year old that you have to pay, you know, 40,000 or $50,000 a year to deal with and then you get to do it for free, you'll feel that benefit.

[A]

The question is if they have pre

[B]

K took forever to get right. Right now in the first year there's only 2,000 slots and in the second year it's 12,000 slots.

[A]

So that doesn't help you at all.

[B]

That's not enough. The question is by year four, it's supposed to be universal. Is it actually universal at the time that they're running?

[A]

It's a huge thing. Right? Because that could be, let's say it's only they go from 12, 2 to 12 to 24 to whatever. And now it's like 40,000 families. Yeah, that's probably not enough.

[B]

I would revert. So I think the. If they raise tax, if Albany and Mamdani raise taxes on folks who make more than a million dollars, I don't think they're gonna do couples that make a half a million, despite what the DSA wants, they're gonna do a million dollars. And those folks didn't vote for him anyway. And so if you're not one of those folks and crime is where it is now, maybe you've got a little more childcare, some fees are down and all the intangibles that we don't know. Is he getting the snow done?

[A]

Is he, you know, let's assume he is.

[B]

Then, yeah, he's going to get easily reelected. He easily reelected. He's also, he's also a breath of fresh air in terms of how he communicates with people. He's good looking, he's charming.

[A]

So it ultimately comes back to then he.

[B]

And by the way, sorry, he's not a crook. No, he's not a crook. No one thinks the guy's a crook. The last mayor, whether you like him or not, people thought he was.

[A]

And the Blazio came within a hair

[B]

of getting indicted and de Blasio came within a hair of getting so.

[A]

So Right. So this all gets back to the underlying thesis that I know I've had and I think you've had forever, which is at least a reelection for mayor is very simple. If the city feels clean and safe and well run and you're not a crook, and you're not a crook or

[B]

a peer to peer, I'm not even

[A]

sure if that kills you, but.

[B]

Well, I think Eric would have gotten reelected.

[A]

I think Eric would feel great to people.

[B]

I think that last year, if you

[A]

just he got better.

[B]

It got a lot better. I think he would have been. If you. Minus the folks getting indicted left and right and the sort of circus atmosphere that they. That they had a police commissioner and what's the senior advisor assuming? Things really kept getting Godfather, you know, whatever that TV show was.

[A]

I just think there was this kind of cognitive distance thing because Eric would constantly complain that press is against me. Yeah. And look at the crime stats. They're good. And I had this conversation with him, but it didn't get through at all, which is. It doesn't. People don't live their lives based on CompStat. They live their lives on what they see. And when they see stores illegally selling drugs and nothing happens, and people riding E bikes up and down the sidewalks and scary people are disgusting. People who just make you feel sort of nervous or just. Or disgusting on the subway and the corners and scaffolding everywhere and endless shoplifting and everything else. The city felt bad. Even statistically speaking, it wasn't that bad. And so I don't think the status quo is where Zoran needs to end in four years. I think it has to improve. And the question is, how seriously do they take that kind of stuff? I think their instinct is to dismiss it because they somehow think that the grittier city is more like real. More like they're living in the movie in their minds that they want to live in on the left. And I think that they really. Even if they kept Jesse Tisch, they don't want her there. And so if the city got dangerous and dirtier, sure, they think he's in trouble. I think if he can keep the. If he can make a better city from a quality of life standpoint, then I think the other stuff is all fine politically.

[B]

Yeah. Although there's not. I mean, there's not that much evidence that folks vote on quality of life. Right. Like, we just elected Mamdani, who did not run on. Talk about.

[A]

But I think a real action is different. I think an election is maybe because one, if Eric Adams had higher quality of life.

[B]

But certainly de Blasio was easily reelected and quality of life had started to tick off.

[A]

Yeah. But you know what? You didn't. Here's the difference. You noticed that. But what we noticed really was because you had. I'll say it. You had 20 years so good mayors. You had Giuliani and then 12 years of Mike, and they put in systems and people and processes. De Blasio's first term, there was enough of an overhang to kind of keep the Wheels on. They started to fall off towards the end and they definitely fell off in the second term, which is part of what led to Eric Adams. I do believe that if Adams had understood that quality of life was just as important as actual crime stats, he would have gotten reelected. The crime stuff was weird. He's weird, right. So it's a little hard to say because he's just a weird dude. And I think that with Zoran, an open seat is about. Especially if you can capture people in the way he did, can be about your ideas. The real act is how the city feels. And I think still, overall his appointments have been pretty good on the operational front. As long as that continues and he lets them do their jobs. I think he's in. I think he's in decent shape. Albany. So there's the budget, obviously, both Donald. State budget and then whatever they do for New York City or don't do for New York City to election year, both for the statewide elected officials and for, you know, a lot of legislature. Do you expect much else to happen this session that are meaningful policy stuff?

[B]

Well, they got to figure out the city. The city stuff is a big. I mean, the governor's already found $2.5 billion.

[A]

Right. But that's all part of the budget. So let's fast forward past the end of this month and now we're in the regular session.

[B]

You know, there's like insure, you know, Uber's, there's. There's a big push around insurance reform, car insurance reform. There's. There was this question of driverless cars, not in New York City, but at other places, which was in the budget and then out of the budget. We'll see if that tries to come back post budget. I'm not sure beyond that. I mean, I'm sure it's an election year. It's always an election year. Folks love to come back to run and a lot of folks have congressional races that they, that they care a lot about. So we'll see.

[A]

Yeah. So let's end on the politics then. So I don't. Look Hochul may not beat Blakeman by the elite she has today in the polls. It'll tighten, but the odds of her losing right now feel very low.

[B]

It's a great year to be a Democrat if you're running in 2026, unless there's some huge cataclysmic change. And actually she's been a pretty good governor and she's helped the city a lot. She doesn't get a lot of credit for helping during the last year of Eric Adams where she really said, it's gotta be Jesse Tisch. It's gotta be this. It's gotta be. She doesn't get a lot of credit for that. And I think she's probably helped. She certainly helped the city by giving the city, you know, whatever, the $2.5 billion and being a good. So. So, yeah, I think she's gonna win. I think she'll win handily. The congressional races, I think, are the fun.

[A]

Let's end with those are the fun ones.

[B]

So there's really two. There's three races. There's Dan Goldman versus Brad Lander in a very progressive district where if you combine Brad in the Merrill primary and

[A]

just give for the listeners, especially if you aren't here.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

As you talk with these. These two or three races physically where the districts are.

[B]

Yep. So Brad Lander versus Dan Goldman is Brooklyn North Brooklyn. So Cobble Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope and up until 14th street in Manhattan, brownstone Brooklyn up until 14th Street. Dan Goldman does very, very well in the Manhattan part, which is about 40% of the district. The Brooklyn part of the district is 60% of the district. And Brad Lander does really well there. Dan won his seat with about 25% of the vote in a big field primary in 2022 in an open seat. This is going to be really tough for him. Brad is very popular in Brooklyn. He was the city councilman in the area. He was the comptroller. He did very well in the mayor's race. His numbers, plus Mamdani's numbers are something like 80% in the mayoral primary. And the mayor has endorsed Brad, although he's not. Like, he's not. He doesn't seem to be all in for Brett, but he has endorsed him and his campaign team is helping him.

[A]

And you think that's because he's worried that if Goldman does want to, he needs to have a relationship with Goldman? Or do you think.

[B]

No, no, no. He just endorsed Brad because he promised him a job and.

[A]

Right. But do you think the reason he's not going further for Brad is because really care. He doesn't care.

[B]

He cares about his. He cares about truly deeply his people. Like, if you are a true progressive,

[A]

how is Brad Lander not a true progressive?

[B]

He's not a socialist. He's a.

[A]

He's pretty liberal.

[B]

He wouldn't consider him a socialist. It's the same reason he doesn't care about Chiyo. Say, like, this is.

[A]

This is why those guys ultimately always fail, is there's there's, there's so maybe.

[B]

But they're succeeding right now.

[A]

Right now. But long term, because they're so desperate to exclude everyone for not being sufficiently pure. By the way, I'm far right too.

[B]

You know, he's just not. I understand that. He's just not like all in.

[A]

But when your movement is built on just effectively pointing fingers, anger, exclusion, and not on solving problems and building coalitions, you're never going to really succeed long term. And I think that's true on both extremes. But anyway, so he's endorsed Brad.

[B]

He's endorsed. It's going to be.

[A]

Does Goldman have anyone that any voters care about in terms of.

[B]

Yeah, he's got 32 BJ. He's got unions supporting him. He's got moderates supporting him. It's a tight race right now in the polls. It's, it's probably plus Brad five to seven points. But Goldman has closed the gap. Over the last, over the last two months or so, there were some thought that the lines were going to be changed and Dan was going to end up in a different district. Brad says he wasn't going after Dan. So it was Dan was taking all the points. A lot of the endorsements lately have gone to Dan and Dan's going to do very well in Manhattan. I suspect Brad will do well in Brooklyn. Dan is now everywhere in Brooklyn. He's like at my shul on Friday night.

[A]

What's turnout going to be in that prime primary? If you have to guess how many voters.

[B]

I don't know. I really don't know.

[A]

I think even if it, here's, I guess where it's leading into. Even if it's ultra, ultra high and Somehow there were 200,000 votes on primary.

[B]

Yeah, I think that's high, which I

[A]

think is too high. Yep. Right. Let's cut in half to 100,000.

[B]

Yep, that sounds closer.

[A]

Right. So it broadcast TV in New York City is you're the part of the reason you're spending so much money is that you're paying to reach 20 million people in the region. And here there's 100,000 people of those 20 million who are going to vote in your primary. And then of those in terms of true undecideds, it's maybe 20% of that. Right. So effectively you're paying to reach 20 million people and then in reality you're hoping to reach 1/10 of 1% of that. Given that in a race like that, where do you spend the money?

[B]

I think a lot of it is, is like digital and door knocking and texting and you gotta target people individually. I mean, I think people, there's a lot of people at least in Cobble Hill who wanna like know the candidate. They know, they've met Brad, they've met Dan, and they're gonna make a decision based on that. I'm sure there are other folks in the district where that's not, that's not the case.

[A]

There might be more true in Brooklyn than Manhattan.

[B]

I'm sure that, I'm sure that's. But Dan will do super well in Manhattan. Brad has had no presence in Manhattan his whole. I mean, I think Dan will run up the score in Manhattan and can he keep it close in Brooklyn? He wins. It's like he doesn't have to win in Brooklyn. He's probably not going to win in Brooklyn. And so that's one race. It's a big bellwether race. Dan has been a pro Israel, not pro apac, but pro Israel congressman, one of the leading Israel congressmen. If he can't hold the seat, I think you're going to see a real tidal wave in D.C. which you've already started, where Dems feel like they can't be pro Israel. So it is an important race for that cause. The open seat in Manhattan's 12th, which runs from 14th street to I think 96th street in Manhattan, Michael Asher, a friend of ours, Alex Borras is an assemblyman, and Jack Schlossberg are really the three. And Conway and maybe George Conway, although I don't believe that poll. But sure, George Conway, whatever the four of them are running. It used to be a very like Twinkie, very good looking young guy. And now some of those people have dropped out. So it's less. Eric Botcher dropped out, Cameron Caskey dropped out. So a bunch of folks have dropped out. But it's still, I still suspect at the end of the day, once money is. There's a poll over the weekend where Jack Schlossberg was at 25, Conway was at 16 and Boris and Lasher were at 11. I don't think that's a real poll. I think once folks start spending money, I would be really surprised if Micah Lasher is not in a good place. The votes are on the Upper west side. Schlossberg has no presence on the Upper west side. He's never spent any time there. He gets votes on the Upper east side, which is where Boris gets votes from. And the votes, historically, if you look at the last race, which was Carolyn Maloney versus Nadler, if you look at the Manhattan borough president race, which was Keith Powers versus Brad Hoyleman. The votes tend to be on the Upper west side. That's where the vote rich area is and that's where Mike is based. He's got all the electeds there. But we'll see. See, we'll see. And Schlossberg is, is going to be out and getting a lot of press attention and we'll see what that means.

[A]

And what about the third with the other Brooklyn race? Right, the Velasquez.

[B]

Yeah, the Brooklyn Queens race is a really interesting race. Antonio Renoso, if you follow New York

[A]

City, to succeed in Nidia Velasquez.

[B]

This is to succeed Nitty Velasquez in.

[A]

And where, where is physically the district

[B]

like the commie quarter of. Well, not all of it, but it's, it's parts of Brooklyn and parts of Queensland and it's, it's a, it's a very weird district, but it's a very, very, very progressive district. If you follow New York City politics over the last 10 years and said on the right to Know act and all these sort of big progressive bills, Antonio Reynoso has been sort of a leader on the progressive side and the socialists are running someone against him. Who, Claire Velasquez, who, who's a new assembly person. She is a socialist. She has been endorsed and supported by Mamdani. Mamdani's number one political agenda piece electorally is having her beat Reynoso. And I find it so, so interesting.

[A]

What do they get at?

[B]

Because she is a true believer, she is a socialist, he's not.

[A]

I think they think they're gonna vote exactly the same way on 100% of those.

[B]

I think he is a non, like a nonprofit fake progressive. That's what they think. I mean, I've talked to some of

[A]

them, but this is why these movements ultimately fail. They're so busy excluding everyone and applying purity tests that they just subtract themselves down to nothing.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, we'll see that. The problem with that argument is like right now they're winning these. They're winning a bunch of state legislative races. We'll see.

[A]

We'll agree with a few things. One, the state legislative we're talking about, this gets back to the whole mobile voting thing. But like the state legislative races, we're talking a couple thousand votes. Right. In most cases. Right. And so if they're the only ones, if it is a super low turnout primary that no one else bothers to show for, you can certainly win. And they win.

[B]

That's what it is.

[A]

And they win those. Right. For sure.

[B]

And who's running on the other side? A bunch of losers.

[A]

Yeah, but if you had. I mean, my view is if it were much easier to vote and you had much meaningfully higher turnout, you would get better and you put some effort into it. You don't want people to run. But the left doesn't want that for sure.

[B]

But I don't think the right wants it. No one wants it.

[A]

The entrenched status quo does it.

[B]

Exactly. Yes. That's what I mean, status quo.

[A]

Right. They have what they want. Right.

[B]

The field, the board as it is right now. I don't know that we.

[A]

The other thing that would actually solve the problem would be if the DSA and MAGA literally split off into their own parties. Because the problem we have is whoever wins the primary, all three of these seats, is going to win the general election.

[B]

Yep.

[A]

And if ultimately maybe this wouldn't be the case with the first two races you mentioned, but in the third race, if the woman running against Reynoso ran on the DSA line, Reynosa were the Democrat and then whoever the Republican was and then theoretically even a MAGA person.

[B]

Yeah, Reynosa would win.

[A]

It would win. Right. But if she wins the primary, she'll win the general, obviously. Right? Yep. So one other way to deal with the extremism controlling everything in this country would be if the two parties split into four.

[B]

That would be interesting.

[A]

It would. It would actually solve a lot of the problems. The notion of a third party emerging to me is really difficult. I've looked at this a lot. I've been involved in various things.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

I think in a weird way, if you were trying to do. If you're trying to solve it through having four parties instead of two, the way you do it, or more than two parties is you would spend a lot of time and money trying to cleave so much dissension intra party that they actually split off.

[B]

The Republicans aren't gonna maggot. They're not gonna push the MAGA out and Democrats aren't gonna push the DSA out because they're afraid of them.

[A]

And no, no, they wouldn't. The two extremes would have to choose to leave.

[B]

Why would they do that?

[A]

Only if they believe that they could actually.

[B]

They can have their party and they can still get the electoral stuff done by running in the system. Now that's what they're doing now. I mean, that's the challenge here is what the other.

[A]

What if they don't get any tax increases out of Hochul. What if the Democrats take the House back? Hakeem's speaker, he's a moderate. He pays lip service to the far left, but they don't actually get to move any of their legislative agenda.

[B]

But certainly being a fourth party and having, you know, 27 seats or something like that's not going to get them the thing, I don't think. I mean, I guess they'd have to, you know, coalition at that point. I think the other thing is, at least in New York City, New York state, there is no moderate. You know, you've talked about this. There's no moderate group that's doing the thing. The DSA is a really good organizer and they work hard at it. Mamdani made being a DSA member and being a field organizer fund. They would go out, they would go to bars, they would get together. But this, thousands of people, this is

[A]

replicable on the center. The problem is nobody puts in the time. They put in, I don't know, $60 million into Cuomo IES also, I don't want to.

[B]

I wouldn't want to go to their, like the mod. Like, I'm a moderate. I wouldn't want to go to like the moderate field organizing. It'd be like, get off my lawn. Like, who wants to hear that?

[A]

Yeah, you'd find that. I mean, part of the, part of the work is to find the right fun moderates agenda. Right.

[B]

It's me. I'm a fun.

[A]

Well, like, take the, you know, a good example would be the abundance movement, right? Yep.

[B]

Where you have to believe in something, you can't just be against.

[A]

It is a. The bunch of. Is mainly a rejection of the far left. But in order to achieve what is a goal, the far left says they care about a lot, which is affordable housing creation. Right.

[B]

This is a good example. The mayor is like pretty pro abundance. He's pro building. He's pro. He wants more affordable housing there. They're doing the thing in Sunnyside Yards, which, by the way, six years ago, aoc, like, deeply opposed. Yeah, we'll see. I think that's an example of how.

[A]

Well that's. I mean, well, with this, you kind of got back to the ultimate task. Mandani.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Which is if the only goal is to just be as pure as deserving snow, he will accomplish nothing. That we know, because that is not a mayor, that's a legislator. Right. AOC can be a legislator and espouse whatever she wants. Because the reality is, you know, while she certainly has a lot of attention and influence. She's still just a legislator. She doesn't run anything. If Mondavi is able to say at times this is not what my party, meaning the dsa, believes, but I'm doing it anyway. He'll probably be a successful, effective mayor, and Jesse Tisch so far is an example of it. Although I am worried that he is deliberately trying to drive her out now. But if there's examples like that that he could point to, I think this probably goes okay. If it is purity all the time at the expense of everything else, then there's a serious problem.

[B]

Agreed.

[A]

All right, on that happy note.

[B]

Happy note.

[A]

Thanks for joining us.

[B]

Thanks for having.

[A]

Firewall is recorded at my bookstore, PNT netware, located at 180 Orchard street on the lower east side of Manhattan. We'd love to hear from you with questions, feedbacks or idea for a guest. Just email me at Bradleyirewall Media or find me on LinkedIn. And to keep up with what's on my mind and my latest writing, please follow my new [e-mail] thanks again for listening.