[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We continue now with our debate recaps, this one from across the Hudson from where the other one was, among the three Democrats running in the June 4th primary. That's coming right up in the New Jersey US Senate race. In case you've forgotten, the incumbent, Robert Menendez, is not in the primary. His focus is on his federal corruption trial where jury selection got started yesterday. This debate aired last night here on WNYC and was moderated by our own Morning Edition host and usual newscaster on this program, Michael Hill.

He joins us now to run through some of the highlights and lowlights of the evening along with Mike Hayes, the WNYC and Gothamist reporter covering equity and access to opportunity in New Jersey. Hello, Michael and Mike, and thank goodness you each use different versions of your first name.

Michael Hill: Hello, Brian. [chuckles]

Mike Hayes: Hey, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: I will admit that I did not watch or listen to this debate last night because I was doing that other debate from across the river, but I am told, Michael, that you did a wonderful job and that the crowd actually seemed to listen to you when you reminded them about no applauding individual answers.

Michael Hill: They certainly did. We had a really respectful crowd, I thought. I think it was some of the language that we used, even pre-debate kind of laid down the law in terms of applause so that we could really-- We said, simply so that we could hear what the candidates have to say without interruption. I thought that was the best approach to it, rather than using the hammer to say, "Don't do this, don't do that," and just a carrot approach to it.

Brian Lehrer: Mike Hayes, give us a quick idea of who the three candidates are because I'm sure we have listeners who are saying to themselves, "Wait, three candidates in the US Senate debate? I thought this was all about Andy Kim as a sure win, now that Governor Murphy's wife dropped out."

Mike Hayes: Sure. Yes, you've got Andy Kim. He's a three-term Congress member from South Jersey. He was first elected to the House in 2018, and he's considered to be the likely winner of the June 4th primary and also the front runner in the general election. You also have in this race, Larry Hamm. He's a progressive activist, lifelong activist. This is his second time running for a Senate seat. He challenged Cory Booker in 2020 unsuccessfully. Then you have Patricia Campos-Medina, also a long-time activist, 30 years as an activist, particularly advocating for workers' rights. She's also an El Salvador, an immigrant.

Brian Lehrer: We're going to play some clips here. You heard earlier, listeners, how there were real differences in the New York Congressional primary debate between Latimer and Bowman over the Israel-Hamas war. There were some in this debate too in New Jersey. Kim, for example, voted for aid for Israel but also calls for a cease-fire. We'll hear some of what each of them said on this topic. Here is Congressman Andy Kim first on that situation. This runs 50 seconds.

Andy Kim: I've never seen an issue tear at our country quite like this in my time in politics. It feels like losing this sense of connection, that it feels like everything's being reduced to a [unintelligible 00:03:40]. I think we have to fight back against that. I think that there is a way in which we can say what happened on October 7th and the taking of hostages and the fact that the hostages are still held is horrific.

Yes, the counterattack has also caused so much civilian casualties, and the near famine, the likely famine that we see in Northern Gaza is something that must be addressed and stopped. Yes, I support the defensive capabilities to deter against Iran, but yes, I do also support actions right now to try to avert the offensive in Rafah.

Brian Lehrer: Congressman Andy Kim at the debate last night. Here's activist Larry Hamm on the same topic.

Larry Hamm: If the United States continues to provide military aid to Israel, that will cause an expected conflagration in the region. It is very difficult for me to understand how someone can say they are for a cease-fire and vote for $26 billion more of bombs and jet fighters and tanks and weapons to Israel. This is genocidal war. There must be an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza. If that does not happen, that will lead to a regional-wide conflict and possibly a world war.

Brian Lehrer: There's 45 seconds of Larry Hamm on the topic in last night's debate. The third candidate, the third participant, Patricia Campos-Medina, said she had called for an immediate cease-fire and the return of hostages. She also, in this 45-second clip, brought up the campus protests.

Patricia Campos-Medina: It is imperative that we value the lives of Palestinian people in the same manner that we value the lives of the people of Israel. Withholding aid to the people of Palestine is a crisis against humanity. We also need to remember that protesting war is a tradition of democracy in the United States.

I am a survivor of the brutal Civil War in El Salvador because people of faith and students protested the Reagan invasion, the Reagan militarization of that war. We have to remember that this is not a new thing for us to be polarized on war. It is part of our tradition of our democracy to engage as citizen calling for peace.

Brian Lehrer: Mike Hayes, were you surprised by any of the answers on the Middle East or the campus situation? I will note that a little later on, Larry Hamm said he would be joining the hunger strike at Princeton.

Mike Hayes: Yes, that, Brian, was probably the part that I guess surprised me the most. I should note Larry Hamm is a Princeton alumnus, so he's probably got some deep thoughts about this, but this was really an opportunity for Hamm and Campos-Medina to draw a distinction between them and Andy Kim as someone who compromises too much in government. I guess there was bits of that there.

He did moderate his response to this question defining the aid that he would like to see restricted with the offensive in Rafah as opposed to the other two candidates here who just called for an immediate ceasing of military aid, a much starker stance there.

Brian Lehrer: Michael, you did interrupt a couple of times to remind them what the question was. Do you think we need more of that from moderators, or were you surprised at how much you needed to do last night, just to, never mind, silencing the audience, keeping them on track?

Michael Hill: Brian, when we prepared for this debate, the WNYC editorial team, one of the things that I kept listening for as we held a mock debate last week was people staying on topic and people answering the question. We were asking specific questions for specific answers, specificity, and we wanted the candidates to stick to that. I know that they were going to give up-- 90 seconds, they would talk and that they would talk about the problems and the issues and so forth, but we were really after solutions.

If I didn't hear a solution, then I just felt it was my responsibility as a moderator to jump in and remind people what the question was and try to get them to answer the question.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we can take a couple of phone calls. I don't think we're going to get the response that we did on the Latimer-Bowman debate because that one is obviously being watched so closely nationally as well as in the district, but listeners who did listen to the debate last night, did you form any new impression of any of these three candidates that might influence your vote in the June 4th, New Jersey Primary? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692.

I'll play one more clip here, one of the instances where it happened that Michael Hill had to keep people on track to actually answer the question. It was a question about not just what policies they would support but how they would actually affect change given the realities of the Senate, the polarized realities. Let's hear some of the exchange over fighting climate change. This is Congressman Kim and Patricia Campos-Medina

Andy Kim: We cannot just wave a magic wand here. We have to be able to build the kind of majorities to be able to do so. I know that that's tough work, but it is possible. I'm someone who's a Democrat in a district Trump won twice. In 2020, I was one of only seven Democrats to win a district Trump won, a five-vote majority, and with that five votes, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act. Let's go win elections.

Michael Hill: Kindly--

Patricia Campos-Medina: We need to win elections, that's for sure, but we need to win elections with working-class voters who are concerned and want to fight corporate America [unintelligible 00:10:14] politics. We do not need more candidates to go to Washington, DC and make deals with Republicans. We do not need middle-of-the-road Democrats to go cut deals with Republicans. What we need is to energize the Democratic base of workers, blue-collar workers, urban voters, who actually want us to go fight corporate America [unintelligible 00:10:36] politics.

Brian Lehrer: Patricia Campos-Medina and Andy Kim. Here's 15 seconds of Larry Hamm's short take on this.

Larry Hamm: We want to move away from fossil fuels, but we can't because we got to win elections. If this logic persists, we will face extinction.

Brian Lehrer: Michael, how much does that exchange encapsulate the differences between the candidates on the issue of climate?

Michael Hill: I think it does in terms of their approach to get it done. I suspect that they all want the same thing but just have different ways to get there to the end of the road. That's the way it seems to me, that they all want the same thing, but they have a different approach to get there.

Brian Lehrer: Mike Hayes, anything more on that?

Mike Hayes: Yes. I would agree with Michael on that, Brian. Andy Kim's comment about no magic wand stuck with me this morning after hearing him say it last night in response to Larry Hamm calling for an immediate overturn of the Citizens United ruling, the famous Supreme Court ruling, that opened the floodgates of independent expenditures in elections. Similarly, Campos-Medina is emphatic we need to energize the base. That was something else that stuck with me and really resonated from her response to that question.

Brian Lehrer: We're getting some love for you, Michael, in our text messages. One person just texted, "We heart Michael Hill." Someone else, "I was so happy Michael kept the candidates on track and challenged them to answer directly when they veered too far. Not enough moderators do that. Also, I was very pleased with Larry Hamm last night."

Here's another person who liked Hamm. This says, "I was at the debate. I want to vote for Kim because of his lawsuit and seems hustling, but Hamm really looked and sounded like a senator. Kim was dressed head to foot in rumpled monochrome gray-brown." That might be the first time, Michael, that I've heard somebody consider not voting for a candidate based on their fashion choices.

Michael Hill: Well, it was kind of monochrome. It did look like that. I don't know if that was intentional or it was Andy Kim's style. Larry Hamm did look like he came dressed for the occasion and so did Campos-Medina. Not to say that Andy Kim did not. I just said it just didn't look like he had really spent as much effort dressing for the occasion as the other two candidates.

Brian Lehrer: Another one writes, "Loved the New Jersey debate. I was so happy to get a better idea of who they are. I was particularly pleased with Larry Hamm." Now that we've had a little love for Hamm in the text messages, here's Earl in Toms River who I think is an Andy Kim supporter. Earl, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Earl: Hi, there. Yes, I am. Also, if we go to the issue of clothing, I was not a strong supporter of Senator Fetterman, but that man has turned out to be a person that can see what's right and what's wrong. He's a leading example of that. However, Andy Kim, I live in an area where he was a Congress representative since 2018 and I was very skeptical because I'm more Republican. I have my own business and so you can see what my point might be, but he seemed to be very fair about what things he went for and wasn't too extreme.

I think that most people, anybody I talk to, some Republicans and Democrats, whatever, independents, I don't even know if that applies anymore, but we all want our Congress people and our senators to work together and get stuff done. That's what I think that he would be great at. I'm happy that our governor's wife is no longer in the race. That didn't seem like it was a good thing. Thanks.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much, Earl. Call us again. I think Jim in Spring Lake has a different view of what Andy Kim should do if he gets to the Senate. Jim, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Jim: Hi, Brian. Thanks for having me. I expressed this to Andy when I was down in his office a week or so ago with the delegation of Palestinian Americans and Arab Americans and Muslim Americans here from the state of New Jersey. Andy has a problem in terms of his moderatism and his centrist positions, and it could potentially cost us a Senate seat. I expressed that to him in the gravest of terms.

If Bob Menendez stays in the race, which is a possibility, he could do that as an independent, he'll pull probably 7% of voters, which then makes the race between-- if Andy gets a nomination and whoever the Republican is, that's a real contest. Because of Andy's moderatism on whether it's the current situation in Gaza, whether it is the climate crisis, whether it is Medicare for All, the issues that really fire up righteously the Democratic base and left-leaning independents, people are ready to just vote in protest and we could lose a Senate seat because of it.

Brian Lehrer: Jim, let me ask you one devil's advocate question here. As a matter of political analysis, which is what you're doing, you heard the previous caller, Earl in Toms River, who identified himself as more Republican-leaning but he likes Andy Kim because Kim seems like a moderate, one could argue that if you want to win the general election, it might be better to have a Democrat who can draw people like Earl than somebody who's going to alienate people like Earl. What would you say to that?

Jim: Yes, the problem is on two fronts. Number one, for every Earl out there who is, say, a more centrist or right-leaning Republican who's okay with Andy Kim, first, that should be a red flag for Andy Kim that he's playing to that individual. For every guy like that, and look, I'm a small business owner on a main street in Ocean County, so I know where Earl's coming from, for every guy like that, there are a thousand working-class people in Howell, in Paterson, in Farmingdale, in Camden, who aren't being fired up by Andy Kim.

This is what happens, and Democrats consistently do this. They pander to try and get Republican votes instead of playing to the base. Republicans play to their base. Democrats do not, and then it hurts us when we get into those rooms in Washington, DC and we have people whose political animus starts at the center. When you start negotiating with far-right Republicans, if your starting point is the center, your compromise is center-right.

Brian Lehrer: Jim, I'm going to leave it there because we're running out of time, but thank you very much. Mike Hayes, a very interesting contrast between those last two callers.

Mike Hayes: Yes, very interesting. I think you said Spring Lake and Toms River, Brian. They're not too far from each other. Maybe they should meet up for coffee today and talk about it. The gentleman who just spoke, he sounds like he's entertaining multiple avenues of a protest vote. I'm sure that's something that's on Andy Kim's mind, but certainly, going back to the debate from last night, Andy Kim made a number of comments where he invoked Donald Trump's name and work that he's done in Congress going back to Trump's term.

As we know, Donald Trump's on the ballot this coming November. I think that's where Andy Kim's strategy lies right now, but it's going to be interesting to see how he contends with these folks who want to protest a vote against him.

Brian Lehrer: We played clips that emphasized their differences, but Michael, you did a lightning round at the end last night, and they all seemed to agree with each other on things like the need to expand the Supreme Court and the filibuster rule in the Senate and support federal reparations. They all said they would not support a compromise when it came to abortion rights or expanding the definition of antisemitism to include not supporting Israel. There was also quite a bit of agreement between them. Remember this was a Democratic primary, not a general election one, right?

Michael Hill: Exactly. That's what I was saying earlier. I don't think there's much daylight on some of the key issues of the day on Israel. The Israeli war with Hamas, there certainly is, and maybe a couple of other things, but it seemed to me that there's not a whole lot of difference on a lot of the other issues. We were aiming for that. We were trying to draw out what the differences are among these candidates.

Brian Lehrer: You did. Mike Hayes, last question. That last caller mentioned the prospect of Menendez running as an independent, and then there would be three major candidates in the race. Do you see any likelihood of that? His trial on corruption charges is just starting.

Mike Hayes: Yes. We should note, Bob Menendez, he's a New Jersey senator. He's not on trial in New Jersey right now. He's sitting in federal-- or I should say, I don't know if he's there today, but his trial is going on in federal court in Lower Manhattan in arguably the most powerful federal court in the country. I just mentioned that to note that Bob Menendez has his hands full right now. Yes, it's not out of the realm of possibility. He hasn't said definitively that he's going to do that after his trial or maybe during his trial, but it's a possibility, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Mike Hayes, the WNYC and Gothamist reporter covering equity and access to opportunity in New Jersey, thank you very much. I can see Michael Hill now, talking about fashion choices, he's removing his moderator's hat and putting on his Brian Lehrer Show newscaster's hat. He's moving from the ceremonial moderator guest on The Brian Lehrer Show microphone to the ceremonial-- Okay, they're the same microphone, where he's going to do the news. It's time for the latest news. Nikole Hannah-Jones will join us right after that. Michael, what's happening?

Copyright © 2024 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.