Loading summary
Transcript201 lines
- [00:08]
A
All right, welcome back to Firewall. I'm your host, Bradley Tuss. My guest today is Chantel Plummer. She's been on the show a bunch of times before. She is my partner at Tuft Strategies and is one of the foremost experts on New York government and politics that I've ever met. So thank you for joining us.
- [00:24]
B
Thank you for the introduction.
- [00:26]
A
No, as they say, sometimes it has the added benefit of being true. Thank you.
- [00:31]
B
Thank you.
- [00:32]
A
So we're gonna go through a lot of topics, but I think clearly the number one topic I would imagine that's on everyone's mind is the state budget, which is dragging on longer than usual, and yet it doesn't feel like there's, like, this monumental, controversial issue that everyone's torn up about, and yet they can't get it done. So what's going on?
- [00:56]
B
So, like, when budget came out, everyone was like, this is gonna be an easy budget. It's gonna end in. I think they thought it was going to be on time because the governor has been progressively late the past couple of years. It's. I think that's the issue. It's that there's nothing controversial, but you're just fighting over things that seem stupid. You know, the main fight that she's been having is the one with the trial lawyers about the auto insurance. Yeah. I think the trial lawyers is a big industry in New York, and, you know, they feel like you're fighting this fight. It's not going to lead to lower car insurance. It's not leading to anything. You're just picking a fight within.
- [01:32]
A
Why wouldn't it lead to lower car insurance?
- [01:34]
B
Because the bills that she's doing, like, look, I mean, in order to lower insurance in New York, it's not just, you know, the lawsuits, the frivolous lawsuits that she's alleging, it's also the insurance agent. It's the insurance industry that needs to be held accountable and taken a look at. In her legislation, she's focusing mostly on the results of basically, if you go to trial, like, if I. If I'm drunk driving and I hit a car and I sue you because I been harmed, she's saying, no, you were at fault, so you should be capped at what you can reap in a trial. It's basically all of her mechanisms are things that deal with litigation and the trial attorneys and not, like, on insurance, like insurance, they can figure out your car insurance rate based off of where you live, your sex, your age. Those are some of the factors that impact car insurance. But we're not talking about it.
- [02:25]
A
Well, what we should be doing is telematics, which is how you drive. So like as a 52 year old white guy who lives in Soho, I probably get a favorable rate, but I am the worst driver ever. Like I should now I actually no longer own a car, so I won't have insurance anymore. But nonetheless, if you telematics would just say here's objectively how somebody drives and that would seem like the most reasonable, fair way to set insurance rates.
- [02:54]
B
I would not want telematics since I get into accidents.
- [02:57]
A
There you go. So if the, if what you're saying is right, why is she fighting so hard?
- [03:05]
B
And that's the thing that people are trying to figure out. Some of the things she's fighting about make sense. They came to an agreement about immigration, which is a big thing with everything going on in ICE across the country in New York State.
- [03:16]
A
So what does the agreement do?
- [03:18]
B
So the agreement is like, there's certain areas, first of all, they ban these agreements. I think they're called 28G. I don't know the exact number. But there are these agreements where basically ICE can deputize local sheriffs and stuff to force ice. Ice, you know, you know, you see, you know, someone that's not supposed to be here, that are undocumented, you can go after them. She also has something where I think in churches in certain areas, ICE cannot go in. They're codifying, they're codifying that kids can't be taken out of schools. And basically the regardless of your immigration status, education is like.
- [03:55]
A
And do these laws trump federal law?
- [03:58]
B
This is the thing, I'm pretty sure this is going to be litigated. I'm pretty sure a lot of these things. Oh, she also has the, a policy where you can't wear masks when you're enforcing. Like when you're working for ICE and you're enforcing their, you know, these various things, you can't wear masks. Which a lot of people are like, who are you? Like, how do I even know you're with ice?
- [04:17]
A
Right, right.
- [04:17]
B
So is it legal? It's like a gray spot, you know. But I think some of this is a little bit performative, but it's more like a feel good like we're in New York, we're going to stand up against Trump and ice. I don't know practically if this is legal and if it will really like.
- [04:33]
A
So okay, so they did that. They're fighting over litigation around auto insurance.
- [04:40]
B
What else is still, she had something to streamline approval processes for Building, you know, if you, if anybody's building anything in New York, it's highly regulated. There's a lot of, you know, back, back door stuff that you have to do. She passed legislation to streamline that. She also is giving, obviously I just saw she enormous amount, not enormous, but about $8 billion to New York City over the two years. She just announced that he's getting additional money so he'll be able to close his $12 billion gap. The new York City mayor, Mayor Mondami. I'm trying to think if there's anything else that's like.
- [05:21]
A
So if there's no.
- [05:22]
B
It's not like bail in previous years or something like that.
- [05:25]
A
I mean New York's obviously unusual because lots of non fiscal items get thrown into the budget. But is there any dispute about anything that involves money?
- [05:33]
B
No. And this is why everyone's so peed off. Like last week she announced she had a conceptual agreement and then the speaker of the assembly was like, no, we don't, we haven't even discussed money. And that's the problem that everyone has with the Governor currently is that she's using budget to do all this policy. When policy shouldn't be done in the budget, it actually should be done once budget's done.
- [05:57]
A
So then what's your prediction for how this all.
- [06:00]
B
I think because you know, it takes a while to put these bills together and everything. So I say probably like at the end of next week, this is the week of the 11th, next week is the 18th, probably the end of that week. But it totally destroys the legislative session.
- [06:15]
A
Right. Because after that, when are they supposed to adjourn?
- [06:18]
B
The first week of June. And they will adjourn.
- [06:22]
A
So that means there's two weeks.
- [06:24]
B
And you're forgetting Memorial Day too, including Memorial Day.
- [06:27]
A
So will any legislation that's not the budget move.
- [06:30]
B
I think redistricting will move because they have to do that. Because I guess, you know, Minority Leader Jeffries wants that. And I think there's like some bills, but there really hasn't been. Normally once budget's done, the staff for both the assembly and the Senate work together to get two way agreements on legislation. There's been no meetings because everybody is all tied up in budget.
- [06:50]
A
Right. So basically this will be a session where given that there's not that much dispute over spending, the only thing of significance that happens is maybe this one question about auto insurance.
- [07:02]
B
Yeah, I mean it's a dud session.
- [07:05]
A
So you have this. How much does it just cost to run Albertly the legislature? The governor's office, all this stuff, too much, right? All that to maybe resolve one, as you're describing it, relatively minor issue and otherwise like, I don't know, do we even need this whole state government if this, if they can't, they literally can't accomplish anything.
- [07:26]
B
Some people would say no. Some people would say look, I am a product of state government. I worked in state government for I think like 14 years. I do think when government is working well, it is very productive and it helps the people. But I think we're in a situation where I don't know how much government can help the people right now. Like how much can government help New Yorkers with grocery bills with like the cost of college? Like there's so many things that people are pissed off and mad about right now.
- [07:55]
A
I think again, I think you could tackle some of these things, but it requires being a much bigger and more courageous thinker than anyone in Albany that seems to be right. So for example, cost of college, which is crazy, there's $1.8 trillion now standing student loans in this country, but all based around a model where you go for four years and you may not even graduate any specific skills that are useful for getting a job. And it doesn't have to be that way. College could be two years, you could cut the cost in half. You could say, okay, this is what I want to do. And you study that. And I understand there's some like value to a classical four year liberal arts degree, but there's an NBC News poll recently that said only 33% of Americans think that a four year college degree is even worth it because the value proposition isn't there. Now that would mean all SUNY and everyone else would hate that because now all of a sudden they're gonn to cut their own administration and bureaucracy and professors and everything else because they have a lot less money. I would argue that higher ed these days exists more for the benefit of the system, just like K through 12 and a lot of other things than it does for the people. So there are a lot of things I would argue you could do. You could make housing more affordable by passing through a lot of reforms that get rid of these constant ability for communities, environmental groups and unions to block the construction of affordable housing. So it just, you could do a lot of stuff. You could do universal basic income and instead of having all this money wasted by Albany, put money directly into people's pockets. I don't see anyone in Albany with the talent, ability, work ethic or courage to do any of These kinds of things.
- [09:36]
B
I don't think it's an Albany problem specifically. I think it's a politics issue right now.
- [09:41]
A
Yeah, for sure. By the way, I'm saying Albany. Cause we're talking about Albany. You can say this for all 50 states. When I was deputy governor in Illinois, I did come to the conclusion that it would be possible to get rid of all state government and move everything either up or down. Either move shift. Yeah, I could. Like, arguably. Why? It's sort of the middle management of government. Right. So state local government does most execution of actual things. Right. The water going through the tap, the light turning from green to red, the trash getting picked up, that kind of stuff. Federal government kind of sets the broadest policies and steak. Obviously, it has a role. But if you. Again, if you were willing to be truly, truly creative and willing to toss aside all, well, this is how we always do it kind of things. I'm not sure that you actually need state government. Of the various things I'm fighting for, that's not gonna be the one that I die on. But. All right. So what I keep hearing you tell me if this is true, is that the governor is incredibly exasperated with the mayor and feels like he's a kid that has no idea what he's doing, lives in a world of theory and ideology, is staffed by a bunch of people who don't generally know what they're doing and can't even make up his mind about what he wants, let alone executing anything. Is that accurate?
- [11:04]
B
I don't know if that. I don't know if that's accurate. What I do know is she was there. She was when she announced the pieta terre tax. And then he did that social media ad attacking Ken Griffith. I think that was a line where it was distasteful because she went out of her way. You know, Pierre and Terror Tax has been talked about for over a decade in Albany. And like, I remember when they tried to do it under Cuomo, it was mass resistance from real estate. She really went out of her way for it. And he essentially shitted on her by doing the social media ad. And then now Ken Griffin's like, why am I coming to New York? Let me take my house, my.
- [11:47]
A
My workers and 15,000 jobs. Exactly. So let me give you my thesis as to why he did this, which is he ran for office promising to tax the rich.
- [11:58]
B
Correct.
- [11:58]
A
His base desperately cares about that. What they call social justice is really, I would argue, punishing the people who've done better than they have. Right. It is very rare in my experience, that the people who are hardcore progressives are the poorest among us. They tend to be people who are.
- [12:16]
B
They tend to be white, rich people.
- [12:18]
A
Correct.
- [12:18]
B
But making policies for black and brown communities.
- [12:22]
A
Correct. And oftentimes their policies result in. If you are truly poor, what do you want from government?
- [12:31]
B
You want it to work, and you
- [12:32]
A
want there to be maximum tax revenue for things like Medicaid, food stamps, public housing. So when you promote policies that you call social justice that reduce the total amount of tax revenue for those things, then the question is, why are you doing it? I would argue that you have a lot of people who were highly educated and either made career choices that sounded really cool when they were 21 or didn't quite have the work ethic or risk tolerance or talent to succeed financially in the way they want to. Not by the way, they have plenty of money, but they're not. Life is hard. You know, New York City is the kind of place where, like, if you make less than seven figures, it's hard to live. And they don't make that because they wanted to do, you know, a job that sounded cool when they were 21. And. And they're frustrated, and they have two choices. They could say, I made the wrong career choices, I didn't work hard enough. I didn't. Whatever it is.
- [13:23]
B
Or they can attack the system.
- [13:24]
A
The people who did better than me only did so not because of anything I did wrong, but because they are corrupt and greedy and evil, and they must be punished. And that's what tax the rich is about. And then I think the reason why Mondami went after Griffin is he thought that his mandate in winning the mayoralty would mean that he would get these big tax increases out of Albany that would, A, solve his budget problems and B, satisfy his base. And he miscalculated completely. And the only thing he's getting is the pied a terre tax, which is a pretty meager thing. We're talking a couple of hundred million dollars, right on people who don't even live here. So for him to frame that as a win to his base, he has to make it seem as controversial as. And sort of high profile as possible. So by attacking Ken Griffin and publicly humiliating him, he knew that would generate a ton of controversy, a ton of attention, which would make something small feel much bigger to his base. Because this is the last time Hochul is ever even gonna have to think about needing him. Because once she wins reelection in the fall, his leverage is gone completely. So this might be the only tax the rich thing he gets done in four years, which means he had to make it a huge deal. And the only way to do that was to target someone like Ken Griffin and take what wasn't a controversial thing, but everyone was agreed on doing it. Right, Right. And make it controversial for his own political needs. They sacrificed 15,000 jobs for new Yorkers to have more likes on Instagram.
- [14:52]
B
I never thought about it, but that probably makes sense because I think everybody was just like, what is this guy doing? And look, I. When I worked for government, I was like, tax the rich. Tax the rich. Tax the rich. But then there comes a point where, like, you can't tax the rich. Like, if you tax the population that funds 50% of, like, the state and the city, if you start losing a good number of millionaires and billionaires, you're gonna have no money. And I don't understand. But. And I don't think they're getting that connection. And I wonder, like, I don't think
- [15:31]
A
they care because they're not the ones that are losing their jobs until they're
- [15:34]
B
living in, like, someplace like Los Angeles. Like, I. Like I don't. You know.
- [15:37]
A
Sure.
- [15:38]
B
But.
- [15:38]
A
But. Right, but look, if you. The Citizens Budget Commission did a report that said that in 2012, New York City had 12.7% of America's millionaires. By 2022, it was 8.7%. The differential for the city and state budget alone in lost tax revenue. 13 billion a year.
- [15:56]
B
That's insane, right?
- [15:56]
A
So all Zoran's priorities would be easily funded, Right.
- [16:00]
B
If he had billionaires in this city.
- [16:03]
A
But, like, look, if the federal government raised taxes, people aren't renouncing their citizenship, Right? But when jurisdictions do it and then others don't, that arbitrage just benefits Texas and Florida and everywhere else. So as a result, you know, New York City is losing taxpayers. They're gonna lose now these 15,000 jobs from Griffin, and that's gonna mean even more tax revenue. Cause those 15,000 people pay income tax and sales tax and property tax and all of those things. So it just keeps spiraling and downward. And yet, look, you've been around the DSA progressive world, at least you're not one of them, but you've seen it plenty. Is it just that they live in a world of theory, or is it that they don't care because they don't think it's gonna hurt them personally? And their needs for emotional validation by punishing those who done better than them trumps everything else. It seems so fucking Obvious. So what's the problem?
- [16:58]
B
I think the progressives, I think, I think half of them actually believe the things that they're spouting. Like they believe these things. I actually believe like the lawmakers and all of this because at some point someone has to be like enough. And I think when you hang around Albany, people who are not progressive have made themselves, they like are starting to believe that they are like progressive and like these like socialist ideas. I think at some point in the next five years like Albany is going to come to an head because some of these policies are not sustainable financially, they're just not doable. And no one's like, no one's like sitting down and saying like, what are we doing?
- [17:42]
A
But if everyone, if every individual member, unless you disagree with my premise that every policy output is the result of a political input, I don't think you disagree with that. So if every member is saying, my only election that matters is the primary. Cuz there are very few, there's a couple in the Senate, Long island. But there are very few competitive general elections and primary turnout's really low, as we know. And the people who are voting are either A, the super progressives or B, whatever special interest has the ability to move money and votes in your local primary. That's who you solve problems for because they're really your constituents. At the end of the day, you're not gonna prioritize the bigger picture in the public good over your own reelection. Nobody does. Your buddy Gene Ayres killed 40,000 jobs because he was worried about a primary from the left.
- [18:33]
B
But he wasn't. So yes there was. But if you are in office, and I guess this is the issue, it's chicken or the egg. If you're in office to represent a district, but your district doesn't want something, should you vote for it, should you support it?
- [18:48]
A
Well, but you're.
- [18:49]
B
Because Astoria was extremely socialist at that time.
- [18:53]
A
No. A high percentage of people who vote in the state Senate Democratic primary in Astoria is extremely socialist. If you went door to door, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who live in Astoria who are not white, people who are rich parents and all that, are not that socialist. Right.
- [19:13]
B
But they're not voting.
- [19:14]
A
Correct. So they're solving just for the people who vote in their election, which means if they're only solving for their next election, which is in my experience what
- [19:23]
B
they do, there's gonna be no change.
- [19:24]
A
Then there's no change. Unless, and this is why you and I are gonna work on this you increase turnout meaningfully in the primary which therefore mobile voting. Cause the only way to get those people who are not voting to vote is to make it easy. Because we make it hard right now. We make it hard deliberately so that we can control.
- [19:41]
B
That's why electeds don't want it.
- [19:42]
A
Understood. So we're gonna have to run a hell of a campaign next year.
- [19:46]
B
Because you know, I think, I do think you're right. I do think I've been in rooms where people do. They're just concerned about being reelected and there's really nothing to counter it. If the people that.
- [19:57]
A
Right.
- [19:57]
B
If they're just responding to the 5,000 that vote that primary.
- [20:02]
A
Right. Although if you said to a lot I know there are elected to our true ideologues. Right. Put them aside for the moment. And you said to the rest of them cuz they're not dumb. Right? Most of them. If you said do you really like having to make every decision just based on what a bunch of ideologues and special interests tell you to do as opposed to what you think is right? They would say no. And if you said to them we can free you, you don't be hostage to them anymore because we'll get your turnout when turnout's 35 instead of 10 by definition that other 25 are probably not the ideologues in the special interest because they're already voting. We will free you from their class and from their clutches. If we can do this. That would require a little bit of big picture thinking. It would actually make their jobs much more better.
- [20:49]
B
100% it'd make their jobs much better. But they're not convinced. I think though in theory we know that making it easier to vote would increase voter turnout. I think they have to see. They have to see it in order to.
- [21:03]
A
But you have to. That's that. Hence the idea of starting at the very, very local levels. So it doesn't even affect them for a while. They can see it and they can.
- [21:11]
B
And then they can go from there. Right.
- [21:13]
A
That's why we're doing a municipal opt in as opposed to, you know, everyone now has to be able to open their phone a couple political things to one Congressional. Do you think what would if they redrew it would do what? Yield two more Democratic House seats. Is that the idea?
- [21:31]
B
If this was me and the times that we are in, I would redraw the most aggressive map that I could and get as many seats. I think they're gonna probably do like two or three seats and they're gonna play it safe. I don't know.
- [21:44]
A
And we don't know what the court will say about him. Court seems to be all over the place. All over the place. Yeah. I gotta say, just as a normal. If you're a normal person and you see all this shit that every state is doing, if you didn't fucking hate government and politics already, this is so fucking wildly corrupt that both sides are completely subverting democracy for their own personal gain. Like, fuck. I think it's just fucking awful. I get why each keeps responding in the arms race, but again, the country doesn't exist for the good of the Republican Party or the good of the Democratic Party. The parties are supposed to exist for the good of the people, and it's completely the opposite.
- [22:29]
B
So it's interesting because, as you know, my husband is from Jamaica and he's learning about US politics and he finds it so fascinating. But from the fairness perspective, he thinks, like, well, this other party shouldn't have done it. And if, you know, let's say Dems don't respond, yeah, they're gonna keep.
- [22:48]
A
In the short term, sure. But like, if you also just didn't have partisan. If the parties themselves weren't allowed to decide on the maps and you just.
- [22:57]
B
I think the parties, no matter how you try to do this bullshit independent redistricting, it always ends up political and partisan no matter what. Like, I think it's a farce. If it was me, I would not even. I would pass constitutional amendments to get rid of the independent redistricting. So just. People just know it is what it is because it's a farce. And there's always back ways to, like, maneuver to make sure you're drawing these lines in a way that benefit you.
- [23:26]
A
But it's hard to see why an average person would have any confidence in the system, in government, if the party. If the. If the districts are drawn solely for the benefit of one party or another, depending on who's impacted, and they make voting as difficult as possible to reduce turnout and they answer only to the people who will vote in their next primary, there's really no reason to trust in the system whatsoever.
- [23:53]
B
I just personally don't trust crypto.
- [23:55]
A
That's a separate story. But in terms of it as a metaphor or example of why people so feel so fundamentally distrustful system, which also then, by the way, opens the door for demagogues on both sides. Because if you run and say, oh, they're all out, you're the one getting screwed. And I'm gonna get Vengeance for you. And that could be Trump, it could be Bernie Sanders, it could be aoc, it could be Mondami. Whoever it is, people are more and more susceptible to that, which then only exacerbates the underlying problem itself. So let's talk about aoc. If you were advising her, would you tell her to run for Senate or President?
- [24:38]
B
Senate.
- [24:38]
A
Why?
- [24:39]
B
A. Because I'm just biased and Chuck Schumer has to go. This is number one for me. I think New Yorkers, but I think this is broader for America, are just so disgusted in their representatives because you see every day chaos. It is just like, I don't even watch the news anymore. It is pure chaos from the minute you wake up to the minute you go to bed, and all you have are people, like, talking on TV with their hands and, like, doing press conferences.
- [25:10]
A
But, like, you don't see, ironically, Chantel is motioning aggressively with her hands.
- [25:13]
B
No, because I am. I am mimicking a certain person that I won't say. But you see people like, you know, I just. I don't have any confidence in Chuck Schumer at this point.
- [25:24]
A
So do you. Let's say that she doesn't run first set. Do you think. I know you're not, like, close or anything like that. He certainly doesn't usually like me these days. Do you think he runs no matter what? Like, do you think. I don't know a Richie Torres or.
- [25:38]
B
I think Richie Torres would run for. If she chose not to. I think regardless if she chose to run or not, I think Richie Torres is obviously someone that would run, and I think it's her. I don't really see.
- [25:50]
A
Well, there are other members that would run, too. Right.
- [25:53]
B
That are worth the squeeze.
- [25:54]
A
I'm trying to think in the delegation, I guess a lot of the older ones are all retiring. Right. So they're not going to do it. You know, Lander is so ambitious. I could see him winning this primary and turning around and running. That could happen. You don't think anyone in Albany would run? I mean, Tish could be formidable if she wanted to do that.
- [26:16]
B
Right. If the Attorney General wanted to run, she. Obviously, I think she would win. I think she'd actually beat aoc. I see her going for governor.
- [26:24]
A
Yeah, that makes sense, though. There is a. Well, New York's a little different in most states, I've noticed. Every AG thinks they're gonna be governor. Most of them, it doesn't work. But there is obviously a long history in New York of that being the case. So, yeah, she certainly could Be the. She'd be the favorite in 20, 30, I would imagine.
- [26:40]
B
She needs to do it.
- [26:41]
A
Yeah. Assuming that the world is where it is today, in four years, who knows? But let me make the case to why. If I were advising aoc, and again, she's certainly not asking for my advice, but if she were, why I would tell her to run for President.
- [26:51]
B
Really? Yep.
- [26:53]
A
Because from my view, if I were just saying her best interest. Right. For most members of the House, it's a huge jump up to move to the Senate. Right. You don't have to run every six years you get more attention. She's so famous that I don't. Having worked in the Senate, I don't think that it would do that much more for her than she has right now. So I don't think it really helps her. Plus she loses the seniority that she's built up in the House. She starts back at zero. So I don't think the upside is that great. Whereas if she runs for President, I actually could see her winning the first few primaries because if she's the one, again, I'm not for her. But if you got 17 center left people running who are all basically the same, right? Yeah. Rom's the asshole candidate, Newsom is the Hollywood candidate, but basically their views are, are pretty identical on most things. Right. And she's the one progressive. It's not like in 2020, pre Covid, Bernie was winning all the primaries. And then Covid hit and there was, oh, he can't be the guy. And Biden, your, you know, your guy just got. Got anointed and won. And I think actually was till the end a better president that, you know, that people give him credit for. But I think she could win those first few primaries simply because of math. I think if she's consistently getting that. Of the hard left vote and the other 17 are splitting the remaining 80, she could. And then the question becomes, okay, so now let's fast forward. Let's say she's won three of the first five. Now it's Super Tuesday, right? And the field has winnowed and there's Gretchen, Woodmer, Shapiro, whoever. Pick whatever milquetoast, center left person you want, right? It's them, basically two or three of them. And AOC most likely at that point, the 80% consolidates around one of them and they win. However, as we saw with Zoran, sometimes you just pick up so much momentum that it's not really stoppable. And so I would say it is not impossible. It's hard. But not impossible for her to win the nomination. And then I would predict she would most like, almost certainly lose the general election. But let's say it's Vance, and so he's equally unpopular. Who the fuck knows? So, like, to me, again, I don't want her to be president. If it was her versus Vance, I think I would probably not vote, quite frankly. But either way, and let's say she runs, does reasonably well, but loses, then she could always run for the House or Senate. When. She can run for the Senate when Jill O. Brand. Next time Jill o' Brien's up, like, it's like two years later, it's a couple years later or whatever it is, and she could go be her own Joe Rogan and make like $100 million a year with her own YouTube and podcast and everything else. And, like, so she has huge opportunity to stay in the public radar, to make a lot of money, that if she actually believes in the things she says, she would give it all away. I don't think she would, but let's see. And then she could go get the Senate seat two years later. So that's what I would advise her if I were her. If I were her advisor.
- [30:05]
B
She's a young woman. Well, couple things.
- [30:09]
A
Yeah.
- [30:09]
B
I think you're coming from a perspective, respectfully, you're coming from a male perspective.
- [30:13]
A
Sure.
- [30:14]
B
Based on her age. Don't know if she wants family, kids, if you want family.
- [30:17]
A
Oh, right. I did not. In fairness, I didn't think about that at all. That's true.
- [30:20]
B
Like, running for president is a huge drain on her.
- [30:24]
A
Said it would be easier as a
- [30:25]
B
woman of color and as a person of color and a woman. I think America is too racist to even let someone like aoc. AOC is not.
- [30:37]
A
Not.
- [30:38]
B
I don't know how to say this. She's not. She. In the views of certain people, she would not pass respectability. So certain non people of color would have a very hard time.
- [30:49]
A
Did you think that in 08 about Obama?
- [30:53]
B
Obama was respectability because of his back,
- [30:56]
A
like his educational history and all that
- [30:58]
B
stuff, his pedigree, the way he spoke, the way he conducted himself. He was a safe person of color for people that weren't black or brown to vote for. Same with Kamala.
- [31:10]
A
And you think AOC is too scary? I think for that.
- [31:13]
B
For that. For that, they'd be very scared.
- [31:16]
A
Right.
- [31:17]
B
I think aoc, if she wanted to do the Joe Rogan podcast, think she could do it now and she'd make money?
- [31:22]
A
Oh, sure. I mean, she could announce Today I'm not, I've changed my mind. I'm not running this year. And that would be a totally. But especially if you want to have kids, right. She's totally reasonable, smart thing to do. And she is, you know, one of one when it comes to members of Congress that could do that. Right. Maybe a few on like the far right or something. I don't quite know how that whole world works, but like, you know, so that's true. I just think that if she ran for president, won a couple of primaries, you can sometimes lose elections, but. But still win by over performing. And I do still think that that is possible simply because again, you're probably right about the general election. But the 20, 25% of ultra progressives wouldn't be afraid to. Wouldn't be afraid to vote for her. Right. So like she could overperform then be an even greater sort of position economically, everything else. And then if she says, oh, I should run for the Senate seat, I would imagine Joe Brand would just step aside as opposed to even losing in the primary. Well, but see, I can't even see a world where she would choose to primary her because I think it would be a very tough race. Let's say she does run for the Senate seat in 28. You think Schumer runs or steps aside?
- [32:40]
B
He should step aside. He.
- [32:41]
A
Well, not should, but what do you think he would do?
- [32:43]
B
He's so prideful. He probably thinks he still has a couple these older electeds, they never want to give up the trappings. So he probably didn't see him, huh?
- [32:52]
A
None of them too?
- [32:53]
B
None of them. Or old, younger, federal, state, local? None. And I probably think he thinks he has one more term in him and he can do it, but he can't.
- [33:04]
A
I think that's probably right. I think one thing that just knowing Chuck will affect his thinking is if the Democrats do win the Senate, take the Senate, which is still, I think, more of a long shot than not. But let's just say that everything broke right for him. That happens sometimes. Right. And he did. I could see that convincing him to stay. To stay.
- [33:27]
B
He didn't need him in his leadership.
- [33:29]
A
Right. And that, you know, how could you sacrifice the Senate Majority Leader? I remember once Tom Foley was the speaker of the House. He was from like Washington state. Like in 1994 when Gingrich had his whole revolution. Foley lost. And they did a poll and like somehow like half the voters or people in the district thought whoever they elected would be the speaker. They were like, how could you get Rid of the Speaker. It's so crazy. Okay, but let's assume now that either Hakeem is the Speaker, Chuck's the Majority leader, or both, at least one, if not both. Now you're advising the governor, you're the, you know, all the Albany eminence has come to you and say, Chantel, how do we maximize this for New York? What would you tell him to do?
- [34:15]
B
I just, I'm going to say the thing that. No, I just don't believe that Speaker Jeffries or Schumer would make much more of a difference for New York. I don't think if they are in positions of power, yeah, they'll give trappings to like more New York delegation people, maybe a little bit of more funding, but I just don't see it collectively as a whole changing New York. I don't think there's going to be way more opportunities for New York.
- [34:43]
A
So I guess I think that's probably right because Trump's still president. And Trump, even though you'd have three New York City people now running the White House, the Senate and the House,
- [34:53]
B
you would think they would.
- [34:55]
A
Well, except the one running the White House hates New York because he feels rejected by it. Right. So, however, I would. I think it's possible that in like the budget. Right. Let's say Trump had to deal with the Democratic Congress and they said, you know, we want over a 10 year period $300 billion for these capital projects for New York, Gateway, whatever. That's the kind of thing I think you could probably get maneuver and get ye just because they'll have the power of the purse strings. But yeah, broad based policy, probably not.
- [35:26]
B
I'm just not really impressed with either. I'm just not.
- [35:30]
A
Do you see a world where Hakeem doesn't become speaker if the Democrats win?
- [35:36]
B
People have been like doing, dropping little hints that maybe they won't support him. But I think overall he will end up.
- [35:42]
A
I think so too. You know, it's funny, I'm kind of torn to the sense of like, I personally like, he's a nice guy. I love him as a. I like him. Right. And I don't know, Nancy, I've never met Nancy Pelosi, but it seemed to me that she probably ran the chamber the right way. Right. Everybody was terrified of her. She was basically like a mob boss.
- [36:00]
B
Yes.
- [36:01]
A
And it worked. Right. And Hakeem, by being, and I don't think anyone's ever called her a nice person. Right. But Hakeem, in some ways being such a genuinely nice guy, it does mean that they're gonna have to really be mindful of that when they try to figure out how to crack the whip. Because a lot of times you can let people run and do what they want, but like, sometimes it's like, all right, all assholes, everyone's voting for this.
- [36:22]
B
Exactly.
- [36:23]
A
I don't want to fucking hear anything about it.
- [36:24]
B
And if you don't, you're going to get X, Y and Z.
- [36:26]
A
Right?
- [36:27]
B
I just, I think Nancy Pelosi was an operator, like in the truest form. And I don't know if this, you know, if the minority leader, I just don't know if he has enough. Maybe it will come with time, but he just hasn't shown to be like an operator really doing right.
- [36:47]
A
And he's going to have the challenge of. Because within the Democratic Party there are so many different points of view factions that the DSA crowd, which is pretty substantial at this point, might say we're not voting for X. But if they say we want X, you might get a group of moderates that say, no, we're not doing that. And given all the stuff with redistricting, he could still win the House, but it might be a 5 margin vote.
- [37:16]
B
Exactly.
- [37:17]
A
So then all of a sudden, and you are gonna really need, I would argue that sort of the moderates who have the ability to bring some Republican votes with them really become empowered look when they pass, you know, and I'm biased cuz he's my brother in law, but like when the infrastructure bill was getting held up by AOC, Gottheimer was able to get, I think it was like eight or 10 Republicans to vote for the bill and that was enough to push it through.
- [37:43]
B
But they probably, he probably maneuvered and strategically found out what he can do. I just don't know if people do that with the same intensity. You just don't see it anymore. You don't see people.
- [37:53]
A
There are not many. Well, because I think there can in some ways. If you go back to our original conversation about mobile voting and even more than that, the underlying sort of inputs that shape everything. If you know that you're only solving for 10% of registered Democrats and that's all you can ever do, then you sort of settle into this like, all right, well I'll make them happy. I'll get myself a tinker, which I like by going on msnbc. I'll raise a little money, I'll give some speeches. And there's no point in really working much harder than that. Right. Like you're Almost in a weird way, disincentivizing members to actually do real work, because they're like, I'm stuck in a system that is just impenetrable.
- [38:37]
B
But the problem is that we need these electives to start looking outside themselves, because where do you see America in the next five, 10 years?
- [38:45]
A
I truly believe that if we don't do something like mobile voting, it doesn't have to be mobile voting, but something that fundamentally takes power away from the extremes and the special interests and moves it more towards the middle, where the two parties can at least talk to each other without getting protested and work together and get shit done. I don't think we're gonna be one country because you get to a point where you say, we can't agree on anything. We can't get anything done. This just isn't working right. 50% of marriages and like that. Mind it, you know. So, like, I really think that's where we're heading. And then the question, if that happens is, is it peaceful or is it bloody right? There's a world where the US could be like the eu, where it's kind of broken up into, like, there's some common stuff, maybe you share some infrastructure, maybe there's some sort of NATO type thing, so everyone has to build their own militaries, but. Or maybe it's, you know, like, I don't know, a continent where you just have lots of different countries that are all totally independent of each other and everyone's gotta build everything from scratch. And if that. If that's what it ends up being, it's gonna be bloody right.
- [39:52]
B
Well, I'm glad I'm getting my dual citizenship right now, whereas you.
- [39:56]
A
Were you getting the other one?
- [39:57]
B
Jamaica.
- [39:57]
A
Jamaica, yeah. I'm getting one for Portugal. All right, last topic. We've got primaries next month. I'll start with two races that I'm watching and then throw whatever else you are. So obviously I know the first one, Correct? Correct.
- [40:10]
B
You know, Micah.
- [40:11]
A
Correct. I mean, I've been friends with a good friends guy for 25 years, but I have to say, I usually feel like I can get a read on a race.
- [40:18]
B
No one can get a read.
- [40:19]
A
I don't really know what's going to happen.
- [40:20]
B
No one can get a read. You know, Alex, Boris and I have a relationship. He reaches out to me.
- [40:25]
A
I like Alex, by the way.
- [40:26]
B
I like him. He does good legislation, stuff like that. It's just like, I. And then with, you know, obviously the JFK was a Jack Shlosper. I don't Know, his mom came out and was campaigning with him on Mother's Day. And I have to.
- [40:40]
A
She is his mom.
- [40:41]
B
And I have to believe that district is still like sways more towards the older people who remember the jfk.
- [40:49]
A
It could be that or you could argue that it's older people who are more moved by traditional turnout than social media. And that's where someone like Micah should have an advantage because his base is the Upper west side.
- [41:03]
B
Has there been polling?
- [41:05]
A
Everything I've seen is like kind of bunched together. Usually Schlossberg's been ahead a little bit
- [41:10]
B
and that's all name regulation type stuff.
- [41:13]
A
Ironically, the more OpenAI spends money attacking Boris, the more they keep helping him. I've never seen a worse campaign in terms of the amount spent and the opposite of what they want in terms of the impact. So. Yeah, I mean, look, the ironic thing is I truly believe, and I said this to Micah and I said this to Alex, that if your only concern was the good of the world, they both would have stayed in Albany. Because in Albany, one, state government does stuff, right? Congress, nothing ever moves. And then two, if you are really hardworking and smart and everything else, you can pass bills.
- [41:51]
B
Alex passed. Good. He did.
- [41:52]
A
Right? Yeah. So whereas if you go to Congress, you just become like a cog in a dysfunctional machine. And you know they're all going to vote the same way on 100% of bills because so it doesn't really matter. So like, I actually think that New York would have been better off if both those guys stayed in Albany, but,
- [42:13]
B
well, there might be a chance for them to go to Albany.
- [42:15]
A
Well, but they both lost. They have to give up their seats.
- [42:17]
B
Yeah. But I think that district is also represented by Liz Krueger. She recently had a stroke. Right, she had a stroke. I don't know how much longer she'll be office.
- [42:28]
A
And then Goldman Lander, what do you.
- [42:30]
B
My preference is Goldman, but I feel like as the. I don't call him this, but people. Anyways, I think Lander's gonna win.
- [42:37]
A
Yes, I've, I've, I'm for Goldman, but I, I, it seems like that's where it's heading. I hope it's not, but any other races you're watching,
- [42:47]
B
Nydia Vasquez is. She's retaining. I'm looking at the Reynoso vs. Claire Vera Valdez because I want to see the mayor's impact on that.
- [42:59]
A
If he, Because Claire, he's for Valdez.
- [43:02]
B
Claire is like an unknown ds like she only was in the assembly for like maybe two years. So she's not someone that's, you know,
- [43:09]
A
it's funny because Reynolds was pretty progressive.
- [43:11]
B
Yes, he's very progressive. And he's a good elected.
- [43:15]
A
Like, he's certainly that. He was on this podcast once and he was great. I mean, he was like, I don't know, I'm sure gossip. He and I don't agree on, but I thought his, like a political Persona. She, he was very impressive.
- [43:23]
B
And I, I also, you know, I just think, you know, you know, Nydia, she's retiring and she, you know, she's basically saying, you're my heir. And I just think that the whole conflict between the Hispanic community, progressives. I think that's an interesting.
- [43:38]
A
Yeah, it'll. It'll be a sign of.
- [43:41]
B
Yeah.
- [43:41]
A
In a weird way, if you're Mandani, If Valdez wins, you would have wished the primary were sooner because that might have helped you in all the Albany stuff. And if Reynosa wins, you'd be happy. It's after session.
- [43:53]
B
Exactly.
- [43:54]
A
Right, Exactly. But either way, it's after session especially.
- [43:56]
B
And I think it's interesting too, because, you know, after the Carl Wilson, the city council race where the mayor last, in the last minute attempt tried to sway the election for Lindsey Boylan, you know, people are saying, like, oh, didn't work. It didn't work. So it's interesting to see if he'll still have the chops for that race.
- [44:12]
A
Yeah, we'll see. All right, well, this was a very fun conversation, as always. Do you do social media? How do people follow you?
- [44:18]
B
Twitter.
- [44:19]
A
Twitter.
- [44:19]
B
My Instagram is personal.
- [44:21]
A
Got it. Okay. I'm not on stuff. All right, Chantel, thank you for joining us.
- [44:25]
B
Thank you.
- [44:27]
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 Bradley Firewall Media or find me on LinkedIn. And to keep up with what's on my mind in my latest writing, please follow my new substack@bradleytus.substack.com thanks again for listening.