[MUSIC]

Brigid Bergin: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, filling in for Brian today. Coming up on today's show, we'll talk to the head of the nurses’ union as the strike is now over at two out of the three hospital systems. The nurses at Mount Sinai and Montefiore approved the new contract, while their colleagues in the New York Presbyterian system rejected the deal, so they're still on strike. We'll talk about why the discrepancy and what's in in terms of the deals at the two hospital systems where the nurses voted to approve them.

Plus, yesterday was Tin Cup Day in Albany, where local leaders, including New York City mayor, head to the Capitol to ask the State Legislature for more money. We'll hear how it went for Mayor Mamdani, his first time going through this experience in his new role. We'll wrap today's show by hearing what you've been following in the Winter Olympics. Are you on the Quad God train? If you don't know who I'm talking about, stay tuned. We will explain.

First, next Tuesday, early voting will begin for primary voters in Texas. Among Democrats, one race to watch is the matchup of US House Representative Jasmine Crockett against State Representative James Talrico. They're vying for their party's US Senate nomination. It's just one early test to see what style of Democratic Party leadership is resonating most effectively with voters as the party scrambles to define itself ahead of the midterm elections.

Last year, Atlantic staff writer Mark Leibovich set out to explore key questions about the Democrats' viability after embarrassing 2024 losses. "Are they capable of regaining some measure of power despite themselves?" he wrote. That inquiry set him on a journey across the country to talk with Democratic candidates, party leaders, operatives, and, my personal favorite, voters, about the state of the party and what it needed to do to win in these upcoming elections.

The result is his latest piece for The Atlantic that, as much as anything, really underscores the many challenges facing the Democratic brand. It's headlined The Democrats Aren't Built For This. Mark Leibovich, staff writer at The Atlantic and author of five books, including his latest, Thank You For Your Servitude, joins me now. Mark, welcome back to WNYC.

Mark Leibovich: Good to be back with you.

Brigid Bergin: Mark, just let's start out talking about what you set out to do here and how you tackled the assignment.

Mark Leibovich: Well, it was a big, unruly assignment which is essentially last summer, I guess, probably maybe August, maybe September, I was assigned the project of taking the measure of the Democratic Party and all of these sprawling, massive disenchantment, and potential, and defiance, and just how appalled everyone was what was going on in the country, and how somehow they're going to reconstitute themselves into a viable party at a time when they found themselves very much in the wilderness in the aftermath of 2024 and losing the House and the Senate and really being back on their heels.

Essentially, the way I went about this is how I would go about, normally, something like this, which is just to go out and talk to as many people as possible. As you said, it was a pretty diverse group of candidates and operatives and voters and people everywhere, and this was the result. Obviously, I didn't expect a tidy ribbon around the conclusion, and there wasn't one. Look, these are scary times, and this is one of the two major parties. If there is an alternative to Donald Trump, this is it.

Brigid Bergin: Yes, this is a real meaty piece. As you mentioned, you're with several different candidates across the country. Some parts of it actually made me laugh out loud. I'm wondering--

Mark Leibovich: That's good. I like that.

Brigid Bergin: Yes. It's not just doom and gloom. There's a lot of tongue in cheek. How did you decide which candidates you wanted to spend time with?

Mark Leibovich: Yes, that's a good question. Obviously, there are literally hundreds to choose from. The idea of a political party being singular is- it's a non sequitur or it's just a misnomer in some ways, because obviously it's just a whole bunch of people, and a whole bunch of ideas, and so forth. I followed the news closely. I read up on pretty much anything I could find about a lot of the races going on there, a lot of what the Democrats are trying to do to make some sense of where they were and what they've been through and where they're headed, and just went out and went to what was interesting and what seemed interesting.

There are some really compelling races and candidates out there. You mentioned Texas. There's a great Senate race in Maine, Michigan, really, all over the country. There was no litmus test, really, except whatever I found interesting, and hopefully that translated into an edifying read.

Brigid Bergin: Well, we're going to get into some of those races in a moment. I want to talk about one of the ideas that you wrestle with pretty early in this piece, which is this notion that Democrats are becoming the party of elitists. I think that's something we've heard more and more of in recent election cycles. It's certainly something the Bernie Sanders wing of the party has hammered. You zero in on some of these contradictions that are, as I mentioned, funny. You have Democrats saying that this is an existential fight to save democracy, and then you have staff complaining about a return-to-work policy. Can you tell us that story and what it said to you?

Mark Leibovich: Yes. The story leads with that. Essentially, the Democratic National Committee, which is this- how you would describe it as, I guess, the institutional head of the party. They're seen as being in charge, but really they have limited power, and they're trying to somehow be the face of the party. It's a huge operation. Ken Martin is the chair. He just took over. He's been involved in Democratic politics in Minnesota for much of his life, and now he is the new head of the party. You have this existential crisis, as you mentioned, and Democrats have never wanted to win more and have never been more frustrated.

Then you had this controversy where, about maybe two months ago, maybe November, I think it was, Ken put out a memo saying, by the way, our work-from-home policy, which is a very generous work-from-home policy, basically- anyone could work whatever they wanted, however long they wanted to- was going to end in February. Everyone was going to have to return to the office full time.

There was a mini revolt. The DNC workers' union, I'm not sure what the formal local is, but they complained and they released a statement and they sent it to The New York Times, and there was this big kerfuffle about how dare-- Democratic National Committee employees were very upset about having to return to work, which was a very, very disconcerting look to a lot of the Democrats out there who are thinking "Why are people in our party, at the head of our party having this battle now when we have so many other massive existential fish to fry?" That's a weird metaphor, I'll say.

I unfurled in the top, the whole controversy of it, and how Ken has just become this beleaguered figure at the top who was trying to keep all of these constituencies together. It's a pretty thankless job. Unfortunately, Ken did sign up for this, and here he is. Yes, that's exactly the pampered attitude that a lot of people accuse the Democrats of having. Sometimes they really do live up to these caricatures quite a bit, I think, to their detriment.

Brigid Bergin: For those of you just joining us, this is The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Bridget Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom. I'm filling in for Brian today. My guest is Mark Leibovich, staff writer at The Atlantic. We're talking about his latest article, The Democrats Aren't Built For This. Listeners, one of the key questions Mark asks in this piece is whether Democrats have a plan for this moment.

We want to hear from you. How do you see the performance of Democrats as we head into midterm elections? If you're a Democratic voter with a big primary, whether it's here in New York, in New Jersey, or anybody listening in Texas or Maine, we want to hear from you. We want to hear your perspective on those races, how the candidates’ messages are landing with you.

Maybe you're just someone who is watching how Democrats in office are responding to this moment in Minnesota or on the Hill during oversight hearings this week of ICE or the Epstein files. Are Democrats built for this moment? Why or why not? You can call or text us. The number is 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-4433-9692. If you have a question for my guest, Atlantic staff writer Mark Leibovich, give us a call. We want to hear from you.

Mark, a lot of Democratic groups have tried to make sense of where the party failed and how they need to regroup. You came up with a term that we'll share, which is autopsy porn. What stood out to you about the many white papers and assessments that you read about the failings in 2024?

Mark Leibovich: Just to be clear, that was a joke. This is not porn in any way or any definition of the term. Essentially, democrats are extremely good at white papers and full on data-rich hundred-page reports on what went wrong, what we can learn, the lessons, and so forth. Literally dozens of these came out. Not small things either; just massive things. I have them all piled high on my desk at The Atlantic, which I guess I'll have to- maybe I'll just taper my bathroom wall with them now.

If just the raw tonnage of after-action reports could be the path to salvation, Democrats would be set up for years. Essentially, one of the points I made is that parties that find themselves in the wilderness, which tends to be parties that lose presidential elections, whether it's Democrats or Republicans, are always saying, okay, we've got to reflect, we've got to see what went wrong, we got to really do some soul searching, do an autopsy, and put out these reports and have a plan.

That's not really how this works. Again, it's a sprawling party, and the parties are defined essentially by their candidates and their voters, and voters pick the candidates. I do think that when Democrats lost the presidential election in 2004, George W. Bush was reelected, John Kerry lost, Democrats were thinking, well, wow, how are we ever going to get back in touch with America? Who on earth is our solution?

No one saw Barack Obama coming, just like when Republicans lost to Obama, when Mitt Romney lost to Obama in 2012, they were thinking, wow, they actually put out something called an autopsy, and everyone ignored it and basically did the opposite. Voters, meaning. They nominated Donald Trump, who no one saw as the answer. Then all of a sudden, he shocked the world.

Essentially, parties are defined by the people that win, the voters imagination, and who they decide. In the meantime, there is all kinds of churning, and report-writing, and hand-wringing that leads up to it. I think the Democrats have gone at this a lot longer than usual in this cycle. That's one of the things I wanted to put an end to, or at least say has maybe gone on longer than it needs to.

Brigid Bergin: Among the many white papers you consumed, you do highlight the research of Scott Ferson and specifically his conversations with voters in rural Canton, Ohio. Why did you think that was important to call attention to? What did it tell you about some of the missteps?

Mark Leibovich: Scott is not someone I knew before. I've been covering politics for a long time, but this is the first time I come across him. He's a Democratic operative up in Massachusetts. He essentially was working on a book called How Democrats Lost America. It's coming out in April. It looked really interesting. He gave me a sneak preview of a lot of his data. Literally, he and his team interviewed over a thousand voters across the country. They have a pretty deep sense of where Democrats maybe have gone wrong and how voters are perceiving them and so forth.

It sounded like a real, very deep confirmation of how Democrats have, in fact, lost the working class, which has become an article of faith, which is just bizarre given that the Democrats have been aligned with the working class for much of their history.

Then, all of a sudden, I guess it was Donald Trump comes along, and there are polls now that say a majority of Americans think that Republicans, led by a billionaire Donald Trump, are far more in tune with the needs of working class Americans than Democrats are, which is quite damning, and quite shocking, and was very shocking to a lot of the people who run these studies, but even like Ken Martin himself who said it's just a damning indictment of where we are.

I think if there is a core argument here and something that Scott Ferson really did underscore in his research, it is how far Democrats have drifted from whatever the ideals of the working class that captured their imagination 30 years ago, 40 years ago, really, throughout much of its history.

Brigid Bergin: Sure. We have a listener who texts some pushback to that broader idea. The listener writes, "I feel like the whole thing of calling Democrats elites is the result of years of conservatives denigrating education. They've convinced people that being able to speak a coherent sentence is elitism." Any response to that?

Mark Leibovich: Well, I think she's right. I think certainly the Republican, the conservative echo chamber has been pounding on that for years, for decades going back to the '60s. The fact is, though, that if you look at education levels, if you look at income levels, those groups are predominantly Democratic now, which was very, very much the opposite as recently as 20 years ago.

Whether it's just the effectiveness of communications on or from the right, the conservative TV, conservative media like Fox, that thing, it has, over time, certainly taken hold. I don't know. I think Democrats do a fair amount to bring on and perpetuate this perception themselves, but I think whatever it is, the data says that this is who Democrats are these days. This is who they're perceived to be.

Brigid Bergin: Mark, so many of the reports you focused on were looking at how Democrats had been losing voters, working-class voters. Yet, by last November, we did see Democrats pick up some key wins, some of which we've talked a lot about on this show; two governor seats with Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, and, of course, New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani. Do you feel like the throughline, if there was one in those races, was that appeal to economic populism?

Mark Leibovich: It does seem to be another throughline. Frankly, they're just very good candidates, and I think that they were very good for the places they were running in. I think the Mamdani was a little different just because New York is such a-- it's just a very different political bubble than any state is. It's a Democratic city. It's unlikely that a Republican could get elected in New York right now. It's probably unlikely that Abigail Spanberger would get elected against Zoran Mamdani now.

Democrats have an incredible thing going for them now, which is what parties who are out of power have, which is that people are pretty sick and not very happy at all with the party in power. That has happened before. The center of gravity of politics is such that the minority party, the party out of power, is at an advantage in the midterms. We certainly, I think, saw that last November, but I think we're seeing that now in polls, a lot of retirements and so forth. The best thing Democrats have going for them now, in a weird way, is the current state of the Republican Party.

Brigid Bergin: Just to push back a little bit on this question about could a Mamdani win a statewide race in Virginia? You wrote about that. Part of the model that his campaign applied started with talking to working-class Trump voters about what they wanted to see from their government. Do you think that a candidate who might be seen as a socialist, a progressive, couldn't use that strategy to win elsewhere?

Mark Leibovich: Oh, I think it definitely could apply elsewhere, very much so. I think that Mamdani while he won in New York, and I think is very well suited to winning in New York, the lessons of him are extremely transferable to a lot of candidates across the country. I think a lot of those candidates are trying to take those lessons, part of it being the just the incredible laser focus on affordability and economic and cost of living issues, and so forth, but also, elite political performers, and I think certainly Mamdani proved himself to be one last year, are someone that people take lessons from.

I think it's transferable. I just think that his politics, in particular, at this moment, were very well suited to the demographics of New York City.

Brigid Bergin: Mark Leibovich is staff writer at The Atlantic. Mark, we have a whole line of people interested in talking to you about this topic. I'm going to start with Sharon in Manhattan. Sharon, you're on WNYC.

Sharon: Thank you for taking my call. My question is, from all of the research and talking that you have done, is there any way to explain the fear in the Senate and in the House of just taking a stand and saying, no, no, no, we have power here, we have constitutional power, and we really can say, no, no, no, this is not the way it goes? What is the problem with standing up? Do you have an opinion about that?

Mark Leibovich: Yes. I certainly have an opinion about the lack of standing up. Unfortunately, this starts with the president's own party. I wrote a whole book in 2022 about just the dereliction of the Republican Party to be the first line of defense or any line of defense against Donald Trump. Unfortunately, Republicans have really continued to renounce that party, renounce that constitutional power they have at a time when the party theoretically would have more power than ever. I think there might be some loosening a little bit of weakening of Trump's hold on the Republican Party in recent months, but not that much to a point.

I also think Democrats are learning that voters are going to punish them if they're perceived as being weak, and not standing up, and being firmer, and using whatever constitutional or unconstitutional or just power, whatever power they have. Either way, they do feel-- If you look at Democratic voters, one of the reasons they're so frustrated with their leaders is that they feel like Trump and Republicans have just repeatedly steamrolled them. As we've seen, and I think a lot of the leadership has had struggles with this, I think they're learning this lesson the hard way.

Going forward, I think more and more Democrats are taking the lesson that fighting not just for fighting's sake, but really for just tooth and nail for preserving whatever rights that they can fight for is going to be paramount to their efforts going to the midterms.

Brigid Bergin: Mark, just this week we saw in New Jersey, Analilia Mejia won that really crowded primary race to become the Democratic House nominee for Sheryl's former seat. She's a Bernie Sanders' accolade. We have a caller who wants to talk about that race. Let's try Diane in Wayne, New Jersey. Diane, you're on WNYC.

Diane: Oh, hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. I am a volunteer for Analilia Mejia. I live in Wayne, New Jersey, which is part of CD11. Our previous House rep is now Governor Sherrill. I knocked on hundreds of doors. My fellow Democrats told me they were scared, but many also told me they were angry because they felt the Democrats weren't fighting Trump and fighting this authoritarianism.

When I spoke to them about Analilia Mejia and explained the way she's been fighting Trump, the way she's been fighting his immigration programs and the fact that she helped to pass the $15 minimum wage in Trenton, helped pass paid sick leave in Trenton, that populist message, combined with the fact that the people that are fighting Trump the strongest are people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, that wing of the Democratic Party, the House progressives, people, that message won them over.

They understand that there are some Democrats that are strong and that are fighting Trump and fighting for ordinary working families. That is why Analilia Mejia got so many votes.

Brigid Bergin: Diane, thanks for that perspective. Mark, I'd love to get your take on that race. Is there any reason to read it as a bellwether for other parts of the country?

Mark Leibovich: It's hard to say. Obviously, every district, especially when you get into a granular congressional race like that, is going to be different. Obviously, it's a big field. I would probably not take too big of a lesson there, except to say that everyone has a theory on what kind of candidate the Democrats should nominate. By "should," I mean people sitting back analytically about what is best suited to win over swing voters to win a general election.

There are some that said the more energized voters are always on the left. There are others who say that when you have very, very progressive candidates who are very vocal, it scares people on the center. I don't know. It's hard. I think it's hard in a smaller population like that. I think every district is different. Clearly, there's a lot of real progressive energy out there that seems to be where a whole lot of the power of the party is right now. If you go across the country, there are very few Democrats today who can blow out an entire arena.

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are two of them. Mamdani could be one, but there aren't that many. These are all either Democratic socialist or Democratic socialist-adjacent candidates. You see that over and over again. The question is whether that can translate into victory in a general election in a district that is not narrowly, say, like New York City. How would something like that play in a maybe purpler area, like, say, Virginia?

Brigid Bergin: We're going to talk more about other races across the country and many more of your calls after a short break with Mark Leibovich, staff writer at The Atlantic. Stick around. Much more to come up.

[MUSIC]

It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Bridget Bergen, filling in for Brian today. I'm talking with Mark Leibovich, staff writer at The Atlantic, about his latest story, The Democrats Aren't Built For This, which looks at whether the party can meet this moment. I want to go. We've got a whole bunch of callers who want to weigh in. Let's start with Mike in Nyack. Mike, you're on WNYC.

Mike: Hey, how are you? Thank you for taking my call. A little background. I grew up in a very blue-collar family in New York City, later served in the military. My last job was with the federal government as a refugee officer. I quit because of the current policies. As a voter, I've always leaned centrist. I've always voted Democrat. I've always leaned centrist in 2016 and 2020, in the primaries, in the general elections. I always thought in my mind that was the best way to win over more votes and get our candidate in.

I have completely abandoned that mindset going forward. To mirror what the last caller said, I always loved Bernie Sanders, but I always thought him as not practical. I am completely done with that because I feel like when we compromise on our side and the other side just completely goes full in, it's like we're bringing a book to a knife fight. I'm done with it. Now I'm voting with my heart. I'm voting where I feel my values most lie. I was extremely happy to see Mamdani elected.

I'm 100% progressive. When I see established Democrats trying to undermine what's happening, like what I feel is Chuck Schumer and everything, it kills me. I was reading the other day that Kamala Harris was thinking about running in 2028. It's nothing against Kamala Harris, but it's just like, what are we doing? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing, expecting a different result.

As a voter, and who's been on the front lines of watching the government, especially in the refugee context, I feel abandoned by some of the leadership. I'm done with it, and I'm not compromising anymore. Thank you for taking my call.

Brigid Bergin: Mike, thanks so much for that perspective. I want to get another caller in. Paul in Washington Heights, you're on WNYC.

Paul: Good morning, and thank you for taking my call. I've been a Democrat all my life. My parents were Democrats. Watching the two parties fight, the Republicans always had this simple elevator speech: family values, strong defense, lower taxes. What is the elevator speech of the current Democratic Party?

Brigid Bergin: Paul, thank you for that question. Mark, I like those callers together because I think they both get at some of the points you raise in your piece. this idea that there are voters who are really looking for fighters and who are looking for people who are going to stand up for workers and for the Constitution. Then similarly, looking for some clarity around what does the party stand for? Love to get to your reaction to both of them.

Mark Leibovich: Yes, I would say that in so much as the Democratic Party has an elevator speech. For the last almost decade, it's been, "We are not Donald Trump." [chuckles] We must be everything that he is not. We. I think the other part of this, which is, I think also part of the question, is we must fight him. We must fight what he stands for with every tool in our arsenal.

I think that there is a great deal of frustration among Democrats that the leadership of the Democratic Party, whether it's DNC, whether it's Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, even Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, what have you, the recent generation of leadership in the party has failed miserably at that. For as low as the approval rating for the administration is now, Democrats as a party, there's not like a wave of love for the Democratic Party among Americans either. The Democratic numbers are very, very low.

I think part of the reason for that is that Democrats are extremely down on themselves. By "themselves," I mean the leadership of their party. I think what we're seeing is just a real hunger for new leadership, younger leadership, feistier leadership, and someone who can get beyond the "We are not Trump" message, which by the way, is very powerful, again. if Donald Trump remains, I think, the best thing Democrats have going for them going into to this election. At a certain point, you need value added to that. I think that's what a lot of Democrats are frustrated by the lack of.

Brigid Bergin: Mark, a listener texted, "The best line from Mamdani's inauguration, 'When politics speaks without condescension.'" Gets back at what we were talking about in terms of Democrats being perceived as elites because they're condescending. What are your thoughts on how the Democrats talk to their voters?

Mark Leibovich: Well, I think there is definitely that perception. It's definitely out there. I think one of the great triumphs of Mamdani and his campaign is that he was able to surmount that. I think part of it is just good old-fashioned work ethic. That guy got out there. He was everywhere, it seemed 24/7. Obviously, geographically, New York is a very conducive environment to get a whole lot of diversity in a pretty tight environment, but also it's a very engaging city, obviously. People are open to people even they disagree with.

I think Mamdani was just really, really good at being a compelling, likable, and again, non-condescending because he was everywhere leader that people really, really gave a close look to, and not only made him a good candidate, but will probably speak well of how he does early on in his mayorship.

Condescension is a big problem. It also has a lot of layers. There's a lot of history built in. There's a lot of class resentment built in. Donald Trump has been, again, it's ironic because he's a child of great privilege and great wealth, and is associated with like the fat cat errand guy for his entire adult life, but I do think that he has been able to leverage grievance. Part of that grievance obviously has been economic, and the economic disengagement that many people in the country have felt.

Brigid Bergin: Mark, I mentioned the Democratic Senate primary in Texas as we were starting the segment. For listeners who are not following it as closely, can you just describe what's happening there? Tell us a little bit about the candidates and what issues you think it raises about the party.

Mark Leibovich: Yes, Texas has become just a classic case study in a lot of what we're talking about here. First of all, John Cornyn, who is a incumbent Republican senator, he's been in office, I think, for two or three, four terms. I don't know how many exactly, but he's been around for a while. Very much associated with the Republican establishment, I would say has had a lukewarm not relationship with Trump, but certainly Trump and Trump world. The monoling of the party has been quite wary of John Cornyn over the years.

He has a primary challenger named Ken Paxton, who's the attorney general of the state, who is an extremely loyal MAGA guy. He's been very much in line with the hardest core Trump voters, has all kinds of ethical problems, legal problems, impeachment problems what have you. A very polarizing figure in Texas. If he knocks off John Cornyn in a Republican primary, which he has a very good chance of doing, I would say it makes the seat all the more gettable for Democrats.

On the Democratic side, you basically have two candidates now; Jasmine Crockett, who is a very well-known congressman, a congresswoman. She is an African American woman, very, very progressive and very, very good communicator and very, very compelling at getting just getting under Republican skin but also inspiring Democrats, and getting on TV, and all the things that people in Congress just love to do. She has quite a following now.

She's going against, I guess what someone who would be perceived as a more moderate Democrat, James Talarico, who is a state representative in Texas. He's an interesting hybrid. He talks very openly about faith. He's a seminarian. He's gone viral on a lot of different things. It's really quite progressive in his voting record, but has cultivated a crossover appeal across the state, gotten a lot of national attention.

At this point, the two of them are locked in a pretty close fight. It hasn't gotten that combative yet, but I think it clearly will. The polls are all over the place. It's still very early, although not that early because early voting is coming up, as you mentioned earlier. It really could go either way. You do have, in some ways, a bit of a proxy for the head versus heart, or the base or fiery appeal versus maybe a more- I don't know how you classify it. Maybe a more reserved but also more- I don't know, maybe persuasion-based appeal a Talarico might be going for. Anyway it's a fascinating race. It's getting a lot of attention. I assume it will get a lot more attention.

Brigid Bergin: I'm going to bring in some callers who want to offer a little bit of pushback. Let's go to Robert in Roslyn Heights, Long Island. Robert, you're on WNYC.

Robert: Hi. I'm a longtime caller to the Brian Lehrer Show. I used to live in Manhattan Valley. Now I live in Roslyn Heights for the last six years in Nassau County. I disagree with some of the prior callers and a little bit with Mr. Lebovich. I think Miked Sherrill's election where she was taking a basic issue, electrical pricing for electricity, the gateway project, sticking it to Ciarelli, who was a MAGAite pro-Trumpee, and he had no response.

Those two issues are affordability issues, but they're popular across let's say New Jersey, which is basically a middle-class state or upper-middle-class state. Hochul now is doing the similar thing with auto insurance regulation, which I think is a very popular issue across almost all counties in New York, but tacking to the left on an an issue like Mamdani's pre-K or pre-K for all. I think those two visions, which is to take bread and butter issues, but it's not a left issue, and broadening it because everybody will benefit.

Now, yes, you need an attractive candidate. You need somebody who can speak well, who can articulate well, but also does so in a friendly way. I think the Texas senatorial primary race for the Democrats is showing how you lose that. Okay? In effect, that is a different strategy. I think attacking the senators in the minority, where they have very little power to influence things other than at the broadest base, is not fair, but I think that's the way to do it. I think Mikie Sherrill really defined that, and also how you maneuver these days against Republicans.

Brigid Bergin: Robert, thanks for that. I want to bring in Deborah in Rockland county, who has another perspective.

Deborah: Yes, I think that the guest is on most issues, but I think it's important to note I've been campaigning and canvassing and making phone calls since John Kerry. I worked closely on Mikie Sherrill and Andy Kim's ability to flip those districts from red to blue. One of the things that's important is Mikie Sherrill, when she flipped her congressional district, she called on every door twice. She literally had someone knocking on every door.

I do think that the other issue is Andy Kim took no corporate PAC money. Both of them were able to flip red districts blue. Now, do I think AOC is perfect for her district? Yes, but there isn't a one-size-fits-all. The Democrats need to understand we need to fight each district as an individual district. Each district has its own peccadillos that need to be addressed. I'd love to hear what the guest thinks about that.

Mark Leibovich: I would say first of all, I take your point. Absolutely. One of the things that led to Mamdani's victory was that affordability is essentially a bipartisan issue. No one is for higher prices. He was able to speak in a language that didn't scare off the usual number of people ideologically. I do think, also, local issues are huge in local races. It sounds obvious, but I do think you mentioned New Jersey and the Gateway project. That is a case in point, a local issue.You obviously, you wouldn't talk about the Gateway project in, say, Texas. It is something that is both local and federal at the same time and is perfect for a statewide race, especially when someone like Cheryl comes from a national background.

Brigid Bergin: I want to talk just quickly about some of the other candidates who you spoke with. You talked with Graham Platner, who was running in the Democratic primary for US Senate in Maine, an imperfect candidate. Tell me why you wanted to talk to him? What does he tell you about Democrats in this moment?

Mark Leibovich: Yes, Platner is interesting. Susan Collins, a longtime senator, Republican, always manages to defy all kinds of predictions of her doom and gets reelected. She's up this year. She's running again. The Democrats in Washington tried very hard and succeeded in getting the incumbent governor, Democrat Janet Mills, to run. She's 78. She's in her late 70s. I think she might be 79 now. Age is an issue with her, but she got in.

Before she did, Graham Platner, who is this political neophyte, he's an oyster farmer up in Sullivan, Maine. He's a 41- 42-year-old former infantryman. He served many, many tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. Very populist, very kind of a Bernie Sanders acolyte. Great speaker. Bernie did a rally with him in Portland and just knocked the place out. Got all kinds of money, and all kinds of attention.

Then all of a sudden, as happens when lightning gets caught in a bottle like that, and then controversy follows him, especially when you have a long online history, there were some problematic old texts about him characterizing rural voters as racist and dumb and so forth. There was a tattoo that he has, or I guess it was associated with a Nazi tattoo that he explained he didn't realize about. He got it covered over. A lot of controversies popped up around him, but Platner has retained a lot of support. It's proven pretty durable.

He is still out there. Him and Mills, again, poles are all over the place, but they seem to be pretty well locked in a pretty close race for both of them. Platner, I spent a day with him on his oyster boat. It was September. It was not winter like now. I wouldn't be under the oyster boat now, and I don't think he'd be either.

He is a classic guy who generates a whole lot of excitement out of nowhere, again, aligned very much with the progressives, Bernie Sanders. His trajectory has been pretty fascinating. He's still here. He's competitive. He looks like he's braved a lot of these controversies. It's unclear if this will get him the nomination. It's unclear whether this would sink him in the general election against Susan Collins, if he gets that far.

Brigid Bergin: Another great race to watch. We're going to get one more caller in Sunny, in New Orleans. Sunny, you have about 30 seconds. You're on WNYC.

Sunny: Okay. Hi. I just wanted to just say something. I'm very progressive, but I'm also very pragmatic. I've lived in Ohio, New York, and now I live back in New Orleans. I really resent the fact that this gentleman presents a voice that rubs me the wrong way.

The base of the Democratic Party is Black women and minorities. Why is somebody talking to Hampton, Ohio, to a thousand voters more reflective of the average Democratic voter? He keeps saying, "Well, New York is different," but he spent most of the time talking about Mamdani. People like me, I'm an Asian immigrant. I vote Democratic. I vote, I canvas, I volunteer. For him to say something like, "Oh, New York's different. Oh, we talked about--"

I lived in Ohio, near Canton. I know what that area is. Like, it's very white. It's not diverse. for him to say that-- He's like, "Oh, we're seen as elitist." No, we're not seen as elitist. The Republicans have convinced their base, who they always cater to. The Democrats never say, "Oh, we appreciate our base." They're always like, "How can we get more moderates to join us? How can we get the MAGA to join us?" instead of saying, let's also protect our base, which is what the Republicans always do.

To hear a man come on a New York City show and say, oh, New York's different, but we really found out there's this great guy who talked to a thousand people in Canton. I'm so glad that we're talking to everybody, but the Republicans don't throw away their base the way the Democrats do. I'm sick and tired of it.

Brigid Bergin: Sunny, I want to get some response to you since we're running out of time in this segment. Mark, some pushback there. You do get at some of this in the piece about this perception that Democrats are- because it's a big 10 party, they are concerned about trying to keep all of the different parts of their base happy. They do run a risk of alienating someone like this voter, Sunny, who just called in.

Mark Leibovich: There is alienation that runs in a lot of different directions here. I don't want to minimize at all the points Sonny's making here. Especially around African American women and men. That's the base of the party, and has been one of the more durable bases for decades and continues to this day, Democrats hope.

I would say, look, my only point in saying New York is different is that New York is different, which is, look, it's different in that it is more progressive than the rest of the country. It is more different in that it receives outsized attention than cities around the country do. People were talking about Bill de Blasio running for president when he was elected. Within weeks of him being elected, he did run for president. People were saying similar things about Eric Adams. New York mayors run for president, whether it's Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, what have you.

I don't know. There's a lot to unpack there with Sonny's point. I would only say that, yes, when you have a big, unruly party, it's hard to make general statements. Maybe that's the peril I ran into here.

Brigid Bergin: Well, there's a lot to digest in his latest. Mark Leibovich is a staff writer at The Atlantic. We were talking about his piece The Democrats Aren't Built For This. He's also author of five books, including his latest, Thank You For Your Servitude. Mark, I'll tell you, your football book is very popular in my house. Thank you so much for joining me this morning.

Mark Leibovich: Oh, thank you for saying that. You made my day, Brigid.

Brigid Bergin: You're welcome. My husband told me I had to tell you, I've checked that off.

Mark Leibovich: Thank your husband for me. Yes, I'd much rather talk about football than all this stuff, but unfortunately, this seems more important these days, especially now that the season's over. Hey, great to be with you anytime. All the best to you, Brigid.

Brigid Bergin: Thank you. Coming up next, New York City nurses at Montefiore and Mount Sinai will end their strike. They've reached a deal with hospital execs, but the strike will go on at New York Presbyterian. We'll talk about where things stand with the president of the New York State Nurses Association, coming up. Stick around.

 

Copyright © 2026 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.