Loading summary
Transcript76 lines
- [00:00]
A
Wait, Nathaniel, you didn't alert me that you were going to be publishing a whole interactive in the New York Times.
- [00:08]
B
That's true. I should have told you that. My bad.
- [00:12]
A
Congratulations.
- [00:13]
B
Thank you.
- [00:14]
C
Wait, what is this? I didn't see this.
- [00:17]
B
I took a look at like, you know. Okay, so like everybody's redistricting, right? Like, what would happen if we take this to its logical conclusion in every state redistricts to the maximum extent possible, you know, which party would win? What would be the repercussions for American politics?
- [00:33]
A
We should talk about this at some point.
- [00:34]
B
Yeah, sure. On the archive or.
- [00:36]
C
This is the longest cold open you've ever run. 10 minute cold open.
- [00:53]
A
Hello and welcome to the GD Politics podcast. I. I'm Galen Druke. As we suggested might happen on Monday's episode, this week's primaries in New York launched something of a narrative war surrounding the Democratic Party. Is the progressive or even socialist left the future of the party is Zoran Mandani, the party's new kingmaker. And is this a democratic version of the 20 Teens Tea Party? We're going to dig into all those questions and more, but we're going to linger on that last point question. Call it a debate. First we'll try to define what the Tea Party really was and then look for clues as to whether it is happening again, this time on the left. We're also going to pepper in a few listener questions. We got some good ones. Like, are socialists a big enough group to categorize in polls? And does the popularity of an endorser like Mamdani or Donald Trump matter in terms of how much the endorsement is worth? Here with me to do it all is head of research at 50 plus one, Mary Radcliffe. Welcome to the podcast, Mary.
- [01:52]
C
Thanks, Galen. Good to be here.
- [01:54]
A
Good to have you. Also here with us is managing editor of Vote Beat, Nathaniel Rakic. Welcome, Nathaniel.
- [01:59]
B
Hi, Galen. How's it going?
- [02:00]
A
It's going well. It's been a second since we've had this crew together on the podcast. How's everyone's summer going?
- [02:06]
C
So far so good. Kids off at camp?
- [02:09]
B
I am here in the nation's capital and we are getting ready to celebrate America 250. There was literally a military flyover of my apartment like 30 minutes ago. And there is a big state fair on the the National Mall, which has become very politicized, which has been interesting.
- [02:28]
C
Is it cool? Because I kind of want to go
- [02:30]
B
to the state fair, the state I haven't been yet. I think it actually opens today. I am Curious about it. Cuz like, I love state fairs. State fairs are great. It's like, you know, you got all the fried food and you have like even more food and like, you know, presentations and things like that. And like, I think the concept is really cool. Yeah, there's a Ferris wheel on the, on the mall right now. But yeah, for listeners who don't know, it's become very politicized. This, this is an initiative by Freedom250 which is distinct from America250. Freedom250 is the kind of Trump driven political one. And so a lot of blue states have withdrawn from the state fair, which makes it. Yeah, the concept is that it would be like 50 state fairs all in one. So that makes it a little less cool. But I, I think it could still be fun. I don't know. I'm gonna go check it out.
- [03:10]
C
Okay. You have to keep me posted. Maybe I'll drive out.
- [03:13]
A
Have you been to the infamous reflecting pool?
- [03:15]
B
Reflecting pool? I have not, no.
- [03:19]
A
Keeping out of politics, staying, staying nonpartisan.
- [03:22]
B
I'm staying dry.
- [03:25]
A
Um, okay, before we dive in, dive
- [03:28]
B
into the reflecting pool. Don't do that. I hear, but I hear that's bad.
- [03:33]
C
You charged with terrorism or something and
- [03:36]
B
get a really nasty algae.
- [03:39]
A
Before we dive into either the reflecting pool or the debate about whether the Democratic Party is having its Tea Party moment, I do want to mention that we were all on SCOTUS blog this morning, Thursday morning at 10am Wednesday, waiting for the Supreme Court to release its opinions. Because had a particular case been decided today, which is Watson versus the rnc, Nathaniel would only have been able to join us for like 10 minutes before he had to get back to his day job. So this gives us the opportunity to just mention quickly at the top, there are still some blockbuster cases that we are waiting for decisions on from the Supreme Court. Nathaniel, for your purposes, Watson v. The RNC is the most salient. What are we waiting for there?
- [04:24]
B
Yeah, it's, it's Supreme Court season again. Um, so Watson VRNC is the case that's dealing with whether states can accept mail ballots that arrive after election day, even if they are postmarked in time. Um, so 14 states currently allow this, including most famously or infamously California. Um, so there is currently a challenge to, to those laws depending before the Supreme Court, they might decide that, you know, for the November election, every state has to, you know, you can't count ballots after, after election day or mail ballots that arrive after election day. So that is obviously going big shakeup in those 14 states, if that goes
- [04:59]
A
through, do you have a sense of how that might be decided?
- [05:03]
B
I don't know. It was kind of hard to tell in the oral arguments. Often you can get kind of like a sense, as people know, from the questions that the justices ask. But I thought that it was pretty kind of even handed. People kept things close to the vest. If you read the kind of like tea leaves, you know, you can basically close. Court watchers know that like, you know, justices only. Right. You know, they try to distribute things evenly between like, the sittings of like, when the case was argued and things like that. And the most likely justice it seems to write this decision is Amy Coney Barrett, which is interesting. And she. Yeah, because she is obviously, you know, a member of the conservative majority, but has kind of like shown an independent slash, maybe moderate streak in certain points. And so I, I could very much see this decision going either way.
- [05:49]
A
All right, and what other cases are we on the lookout for in the final days of the term? Which, when does this all have to wrap up by before July 1, is
- [05:58]
B
that I don't think there's a legal, like, deadline, but the, the justices really don't want to have to cancel their Fourth of July plans. You know, they got fishing and hunting trips to go on. They got to get out of the city. So historically, it has always. They've kind of treated the Fourth of July as a soft deadline. But there are eight cases left and probably two more decision days next week. So, you know, I think that wraps up in time for the fourth. But yeah, there are a lot of big decisions, you know, things that don't affect my day job as much, but I think probably the most prominent one is birthright citizenship. Trump's efforts to, to get rid of that, even though the constit seems to kind of clearly put that out. I think most people are expecting a pretty decisive rebuke of the president there, either seven to two or nine to nothing. So that'll be interesting. And then there are a couple of cases about kind of independent agencies. Right. How independent are things like the Fed and therefore how much control can Trump exercise over them as the head of the executive branch? They could have big repercussions as well. So I will definitely be watching those next week. Maybe we'll talk about them.
- [06:58]
A
Yeah, maybe it'd be fun to get back together next week before the 4th. We'll see. We'll see if we can make it happen. Okay, let's talk about the primaries in New York, the races that launched a thousand takes and yes, that is an Iliad reference. Get ready for the Odyssey, the movie, to come out. Big deal for any, you know, classic studies majors out there. Okay, so the three candidates that Mamdani endorsed won their contests. Two against incumbents and the other against the candidate endorsed by the incumbent. The winners were Clerical Valdez and Darielisa Avila Chevalier, who are socialists, and Brad Lander, who was a longtime socialist but left the Democratic Socialists of America after their response to the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel. So here's a smattering of the headlines that emerged from Tuesday's contest. We have Reuters, Mamdani's sweep in New York. A Political earthquake amongst Democrats. Washington Post. Mamdani emerges as kingmaker. Also Washington Post. Socialist election wins Spawn wider identity questions for Democrats. Vox. The Democratic Tea Party is here. Here's where it might go next. The Bulwark. The Democratic Tea Party isn't here yet. The New York post. How just 7% of voters, mostly young and white, led Mamdani's NYC socialist election surge. The Guardian. Glorious time to be a New Yorker as Lander's win highlights Mamdani effect and democracy Now. Finally, seismic shift. DSA and Mamdani backed pro Palestine Democrats sweep New York Primaries. Would you endorse any or all of those headlines?
- [08:39]
B
I endorse all of those headlines.
- [08:41]
A
Okay, fair enough.
- [08:43]
C
I mean, I think, like, broadly speaking, the, this point about, like, Mamdani pushing these candidates over the finish line, I think is probably fairly true. Right. Like, I think the fact that there were a bunch of candidates that were, like, sort of seen as together in a way, and with Mamdani probably helped a lot. Right. If these were isolated races, even if there was an endorsement from a prominent politician like Sarhan Mamdani, I don't know that you would have seen all of these candidates win, especially Chevalier. Or is it. Did she use Avila Chevalier?
- [09:15]
A
Chevalier.
- [09:16]
B
I think it's Avila Chevalier, yes. Although I can. Can I vote that we call her dac?
- [09:21]
C
Oh, my gosh. Let's call her D, A, C. Okay.
- [09:24]
B
We got aoc. We got dac. I feel like that's the inevitable next step. So, yeah, there you go.
- [09:29]
C
You know, I, I, I, I don't know that she would have seen as much success, especially against a sitting incumbent, without this sort of, like, broader we are a unit sort of feeling to these races.
- [09:39]
B
Yeah. I think that, you know, Zaran Mamdani's endorsement record is now 100%, which is even better than Donald Trump's of 98%. So clearly, I think Mamdani wins. I mean, obviously, I think it is a small sample size, but I think that, yeah, Mamdani is enjoying. I don't know if you could say that he's still in his honeymoon period. You know, it's been six months. But, you know, he is off to a strong start. You know, we'll see how he finishes. But, but yeah, he has political capital right now. He is using it. He succeeded in using it. I think that, you know, somebody like Brad Lander was going to win anyway. Dan Goldman, the incumbent in that district, had, you know, was always, you know, not the favorite of progressives and I believe won his first primary with a plural. And I think was, yeah, was always just kind of in danger. He was a bit of a sitting duck. But, you know, the other ones, you know, I think especially knocking off Adriano Espail, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, was, that was probably the longest shot race. And, and the, the DSA candidate, DAC was able to do it. And, and I think that that is a real feather in Mamdani's cap. That's, that was no small opponent to go after.
- [10:50]
A
Well, since we're starting with the Mamdani effect, I want to throw in a question from a listener. Bri, I think this question, I know this question was asked before the New York primaries and mostly pertains to Trump, but we can apply it here as well. So Bri asks, I'm curious if the popularity of a person or organization giving an endorsement ultimately has an impact on the success of the candidate they endorse. For example, as Trump becomes less popular, does it hurt a candidate to get his endorsement? Do people just ignore endorsements from people or organizations they don't like? And if they like the candidate in general, if the IRS started endorsing candidates, would that hurt their chances? I mean, I guess this touches a couple different features of the New York primaries, which is, you know, how much Madani's popularity in New York City or amongst a subset of New York City voters matters. So I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that. We can also answer the part about Trump, but I think, for example, AIPAC became a feature of a lot of these races and whether these candidates had been endorsed by supporters of Israel in particular. Dan Goldman. And so maybe sub in AIPAC for the irs, because I don't think the IRS is probably allowed to endorse candidates. Although, you know, in, in this world,
- [12:10]
B
we're in a brave new world.
- [12:14]
A
Yeah. How do you, how do you, how would you answer breathe Question I think
- [12:18]
B
it's a great question. I, I am actually not aware of any kind of empirical work on it, but I think pretty clearly the answer is yes, the popularity does matter. I think you see this in candidates kind of behavior, right? When politicians are not popular, they often people don't want their endorsement, they don't want to campaign with them. I'm thinking about, you know, George W. Bush in, you know, the 2008 election, you know, was really staying out of helping John McCain in any way, or Barack OB during, you know, some of his midterms, you know, candidates, Democrats were distancing themselves from him and they did not want to be seen as the Obama endorsed candidate.
- [12:53]
A
Wait, Nathaniel, hold on. Have you seen the Veep episode where Selina Meyer flies out to Ohio to endorse the candidate for governor in Ohio at the midterms, and she flies out to do the endorsement and then they realize that her numbers have been dropping significantly, her own popularity, and they're like, actually, don't, don't endorse. We don't want you to endorse anymore. And then she does an interview or something where she has a really sort of sentimental moment and starts crying. And somehow in the matter of just a few hours, her approval numbers turn around and they decide that ultimately they want her to endorse. And they sort of go back and forth in the moments surrounding her introduction of this candidate to decide whether or not she was ultimately going to endorse. So at the very least, the writers in Veep believed that approval ratings matter for the endorser.
- [13:42]
B
Yeah. So we really don't need any kind of empirical study of this question. It's been answered. Um, but no, but I think, I think you clearly see that in the way that candidates behave. I think, you know, Trump's endorsement has proven very powerful in Republican primaries with, where, you know, the vast majority of voters approve of him. But it's actually, I think it has tended to hurt candidates in general elections, much to his chagrin. And I think that the APAC thing is a good point too, because APAC doesn't go out being like, you know, we endorse this candidate. They create like, you know, shell organizations essentially to spend money for it, to distance themselves from it, because I think they know that, especially in Democratic primaries, that's not a good look. But, you know, the money is still worth quite a lot, I think, for the candidates who benefit from it. But, but no, absolutely, I, I think that the popularity of the endorser absolutely matters.
- [14:34]
C
I think it probably also matters quite a lot more in races where people have much less information, like House primaries certainly are going to be more impacted by a like very well liked endorser than perhaps something where voters have more information. So I'm thinking of recent like Trump endorsement misses in like South Carolina and Georgia, really high profile statewide races where the Trump endorsed candidate for governor Pam Yvette in South Carolina lost to Attorney General Alan Wilson, the Trump endorsement, who
- [15:06]
B
also got Trump's endorsement at the last minute.
- [15:08]
C
Yes, because he knew once, once it became quite clear that Pam Yvette was going to lose, Trump jumped in and said I also endorse Alan Wilson. But that was more about protecting his, his record in these things.
- [15:23]
B
No, the point stands.
- [15:24]
C
No, this is actually quite interesting. I don't know if I may be breaking any news here, but followers of FiveThirtyEight might recall the primary project that we've been running for the past several cycles where we collect data about endorsements from various different political actors in every primary for House, Senate and Governor. We are bringing it back at 50 plus one, folks. So we will have some articles upcoming looking at how different factions in the two parties are faring in terms of their endorsements this year. And I will put this idea in my pocket for later. Nathaniel?
- [15:59]
A
Yeah, Mary, I think the point about how high profile an election is or how much sort of education there is amongst the electorate on a particular election matters, and I think that will be a feature of what we talk about in this New York primary where the electorate was actually not all that big. That number from the New York Post was accurate in terms of 7% of registered voters deciding these races. I mean, even say in the district that got a bunch of attention, which was a socialist versus a progressive in Claire Valdez versus Antonio Reynoso, it's a district where there are 500,000 registered voters and about 35,000 people cast ballots. So we're talking about a part of the electorate that probably pays a lot more attention to people like Zoran Mamdani. And you know, in an environment like that, he can have a really big impact because he can turn out sort of voters that are following him on TikTok or Instagram or whatever while the rest of the electorate is really not paying attention.
- [17:04]
B
Yeah, absolutely. And that's a feature of primaries overall. Right. You know, they are low turnout events decided by, you know, the most engaged voters of a party. It is easy for us analysts to generalize about the entire electorate and how they are feeling based on primary results. But it is good perspective to remember that it is just a fraction.
- [17:26]
A
Okay, so we've talked about the Mamdani piece. Do you have any other takeaways from Tuesday's elections in New York?
- [17:33]
B
Is this where we get to debate whether there's a Democratic Tea Party or a chai latte party, as I like to call it?
- [17:41]
A
If that is in fact your takeaway, you're more than welcome to sort of make that takeaway. I'm curious if you think that in general the amount of attention being heaped on this smattering of races is appropriate before maybe we get to the, the more precise question.
- [18:01]
B
I mean. No, yeah, like, I, I think that, I think I've. New York is the center of that.
- [18:07]
C
We over talk New York politics nationally.
- [18:11]
B
Yeah, yeah, I, I think that, you know, they were, you know, they were big wins for the left and they should be proud. But it is just one state out of 50 and it's really just one
- [18:21]
A
city out of one state.
- [18:23]
B
That's true. One city out of one state, three
- [18:25]
C
districts out of 435.
- [18:28]
B
So yes, I absolutely think that people are probably overgeneralizing based on a small sample size. But I think that when you look at the bigger picture, I still think there's an interesting discussion to be had about the Democratic Tea Party.
- [18:38]
A
Okay, so let's have that discussion. Do you want to dive in or do you want to first define what the Tea Party was before we try to make comparisons so that we have at least a reference point and we're not just glossing over something that at this point happened over 10 years ago.
- [18:57]
B
Yeah, well, so I think this is an important part of the debate, you know, and so to peel back the curtain a little bit, you know, we were talking about this before the show and you know what our thoughts were on it. And Mary said that she doesn't think that there's a Democratic Tea Party going on. And I said I think there is a Democratic Tea Party going on. I suspect that because Mary and I are both, you know, smart data people, that we probably have a pretty similar read on the situation on the ground, but maybe like differ on how exactly to frame it. I would say. So the Tea Party movement, you know, for our, for our younger listeners, was a, a conservative movement within the Republican Party around 2010 and 2012, that basically it was a movement against establishment politicians. It was among, you know, like farther right Republicans who wanted, you know, really kind of, you know, hard lines on government spending. And you know, there was a fair amount of racism too. And you know, they really defeated some Republican incumbents, won a lot of open seats, obviously kind of led to the creation of the Freedom Caucus, which continues to plague Republican leadership in the House to this day, and also kind of laid the groundwork for the anti establishment swell within the Republican Party that culminated with Donald Trump.
- [20:12]
A
Oh, interesting. I see it a slightly differently, but
- [20:15]
B
okay, see, there we go.
- [20:17]
A
Fight about you.
- [20:18]
B
Do you want to give your definition?
- [20:21]
A
Mary, you go first.
- [20:22]
C
Okay. I mean, I think I largely agree with that characterization from Nathaniel. I think the one thing that I would add here is that I actually think you see the Tea Party, yes, it's in part a reaction to Barack Obama's election. But I also think that you can see this as an outgrowth of the Ron Paul presidential campaign. And I think one of the critical things for me about the Tea Party is the degree to which very quickly, institutional actors stepped in to help build a scaffolding on which this entire thing grew. So you saw in those early days of the Tea Party, a collection of grassroots, they were called at the time, grassroots organizations funded primarily from Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works, both of which were Koch Brothers organizations. So, like, I think one of the keys for the. For me for understanding the Tea Party is this was there is clear institutional support behind this movement that I think is really important.
- [21:23]
B
Yeah, but I also think that, you know, the kind of the first gasps of the Tea Party were these protests at town halls against Obamacare in, like the summer of 2009. And, you know, I think that there was also a real, like, I think the grassroots movement. I think there was a real sentiment among voters that perhaps that those, you know, the Koch Brothers and stuff kind of tapped into for their benefit and the kind of. Those two things kind of worked in tandem. But, yeah, sure, I agree.
- [21:50]
A
I think the grassroots piece was absolutely real, as was the institutional piece. But that's often how politics works, is that, you know, an idea starts to simmer and then people try to figure out how to take advantage of political action that's already there for their own purposes. But I think before we get too much into a nitty gritty debate over that, how I would define the Tea Party is largely a failed political movement. You know, that's the end of today's Preview. Head to GDPolitics.com to become a paid subscriber and catch the full episode. We spent the rest of the episode, about an hour, debating whether the Democratic Party is experiencing its own Tea Party and what that would even mean. We talked about how prevalent socialists are within the Democratic Party to what extent they're winning primaries and setting the agenda for the rest of the party. We also debated whether the Tea Party was ultimately successful. Should another political movement want to be compared to the Tea Party? Like I said, head over to GDPolitics.com to catch the whole thing. For eight bucks a month or 80 bucks a year, you'll get twice the number of episodes, and we'll help ensure we can keep making an independent podcast. Again. That's gdpolitics.com, hope to see you there.