More stories

  • in

    Hungry for Cash, Zeldin Turns to Trump in N.Y. Governor’s Race

    Republicans running statewide in a Democrat-dominated state like New York often follow a predictable path toward the political center. On Sunday, though, Representative Lee Zeldin will take a different route — south to the Jersey Shore for a fund-raiser starring former President Donald J. Trump.The high-profile rendezvous, at the palatial seaside retreat of old Trump real estate friends, has already prompted days of Democratic attacks against Mr. Zeldin, the Republican nominee for governor.But Mr. Zeldin is after something more important to his campaign than political optics: With tickets going for up to $100,000 a couple (including a photo and “V.I.P. Reception” with the 45th president), the event promises to deliver $1 million or more in badly needed campaign funds, which would be his largest haul to date.Republicans have lauded Mr. Zeldin, a 42-year-old Army reservist and conservative Long Island congressman, as their best chance to win the governor’s mansion in two decades. He faces a relatively untested Democratic opponent, Gov. Kathy Hochul, in a year when his party’s relentless focus on inflation and public safety may resonate with voters.Yet with just nine weeks to go until Election Day, Mr. Zeldin is at risk of being dangerously outspent by Ms. Hochul, a critical impediment to meaningfully compete in the nation’s most expensive media market.As summer wanes, that possibility has sent Mr. Zeldin on a furious fund-raising swing from the Hamptons to Lake Erie (one event featured a jet suit demonstration) hunting for cash.And at a time when some party strategists are calling on him to moderate his stances on issues like guns or abortion, it has driven the congressman to tighten his links to right-wing heroes like Mr. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who have the notoriety to bring out big new donors, but nonetheless could turn off New York swing voters.“My view is there’s a path, but that path is expensive,” said Gerard Kassar, the chairman of the Conservative Party in New York.Not even Mr. Zeldin’s closest allies argue he will be able to match Ms. Hochul’s campaign juggernaut, which is on track to leverage her powers as governor to raise between $50 million and $70 million in the race and to begin blanketing the airwaves starting next week with an initial $2 million TV and digital ad buy targeting Mr. Zeldin.But to compete, they say he needs to raise at least another $10 million to $20 million, multiples more than recent Republican candidates for governor, after a costly primary burned up almost all his funds, and left him with just over $1.5 million in the bank by mid-July.Doing so is no easy task, particularly when it comes to convincing the kind of shrewd, deep-pocketed Republican donors — who are also weighing involvement in tighter Senate, House and governor’s races across the country — that a conservative candidate can buck history and overcome New York’s strong Democratic tilt.“These people are investors. They don’t get themselves into a position to donate by throwing money away,” said Chapin Fay, a Republican strategist who worked on Mr. Zeldin’s first successful House race in 2014. “The work Lee has to do is to prove that there is a path.”Despite Republican optimism, an August Siena College poll showed Ms. Hochul with a 14-point lead. And a recent special congressional election in the Hudson Valley, won by a Democrat, Pat Ryan, suggested that what once looked like a historically good year for Republican candidates may be less assured.It is unclear how much help Mr. Zeldin may get from Republicans outside New York. The Republican Governors Association, the clearinghouse for chief executive races across the country, is capable of spending millions in races it believes it can win and appears poised as of now to take a pass financially on Mr. Zeldin’s cause.Two new super PACs will soon raise money aimed at helping Mr. Zeldin, the Republican candidate for governor in New York.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesDuring one recent briefing, officials for the group outlined 18 states they were focused on and prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars in this fall, including Arizona, Georgia, Ohio, Oregon, Connecticut, Minnesota, Texas and Wisconsin, according to a person familiar with the presentation. They made no mention of New York, or Mr. Zeldin.Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the governors’ group, called Mr. Zeldin a “strong candidate” and said it would be monitoring the New York race. Confident in Ms. Hochul’s standing, the Democratic Governors Association does not plan to invest, either.Mr. Fay is doing his part to help fill the gap. He plans to roll out a new super PAC next week dedicated to deepening Republican inroads in Asian, Latino, Eastern European and Jewish communities in New York City where Mr. Zeldin needs to narrow Democratic margins. He aims to raise $1 million, and has already secured at least one six-figure check to fund multilingual messaging.Two more party stalwarts, Edward F. Cox and John J. Faso, are raising funds for another, larger super PAC to back Mr. Zeldin and weaken Ms. Hochul on the airwaves. It remains unclear how much they can assemble, but the two men have deep ties to some of the party’s wealthiest donors from Mr. Cox’s years as the state party chairman. They also found success this spring financing a successful lawsuit that ultimately thwarted Democrats’ attempt to gerrymander New York’s congressional districts.Mr. Zeldin’s campaign declined to say how much he has raised in recent weeks. A spokeswoman, Katie Vincentz, asserted that Mr. Zeldin had already raised more than previous Republican challengers, and was confident that he would “have all of the resources he needs to fire Kathy Hochul on Nov. 8 and save our state.”She also accused Ms. Hochul of trying “to sell access to Albany” to potential campaign supporters, a perennial charge against New York governors.Coming off an overwhelming primary victory in June, Ms. Hochul has spent the summer months jetting between California, the Hamptons and the Hudson Valley, using $10,000 cocktail party invitations to rebuild her own stockpile, which stood at almost $12 million in mid-July.Though she only took office a year ago, Ms. Hochul has proved to be one of the state’s most aggressive fund-raisers in recent memory, pushing the boundaries of ethics rules and her own executive orders to collect large checks from business leaders, lobbyists and others with interests before the state. By mid-July, she had collected about 112 checks for $50,000 each, compared to close to 40 donations of a similar size collected by Mr. Zeldin, according to campaign finance records.Ms. Hochul will also have some outside help. The carpenters union has pledged to spend $1 million for New York Democrats, according to The Albany Times Union. And allies of Mayor Eric Adams, including the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council and Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, are also raising funds for a small Hochul-oriented super PAC. The group currently plans to spend six figures, but could scale up if the race tightens.The PAC plans “to elevate Governor Hochul’s strong record on standing up for working people and unions, protecting reproductive freedom, keeping us safe by tackling gun violence, and delivering record funding for our health care and public schools,” said Candis Tall, the political director for 32BJ who sits on the its board.Mr. Zeldin, meanwhile, has put together his own impressive run of high-dollar events.He raised six figures last week at a carnivalesque event on Long Island. Hosted by the insurance magnates Steve and Carolyn Louro, the beachy “dinner party” in Nissequogue advertised fireworks, appearances by retired New York Giants and Yankees, speeches by Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle, and a test flight by the British inventor of a jet suit.Mr. Zeldin’s campaign netted close to $1 million last Sunday at an event at the waterfront Oyster Bay estate of Matthew Bruderman, a wealthy financier. Donors shelled out $25,000 a plate for a “V.I.P. dinner” with Mr. Zeldin and Mr. DeSantis, who ultimately did not attend, and heard from Dan Bongino, the right-wing media personality.This coming Sunday’s event in Deal, N.J., will be hosted by the Chera family, a prominent group of Syrian Jewish real estate developers whose firm owned the St. Regis New York Hotel and the Cartier Mansion. The patriarch, Stanley Chera, was a friend and political supporter of Mr. Trump who died in April 2020 of complications from Covid-19. Tickets run between $1,000 and $100,000 a couple, with varying levels of access to the former president.Democrats have already used the event to renew familiar attacks against Mr. Zeldin as a far-right puppet of the former president whose views — including a House vote to overturn 2020 election results — are too extreme for the state.“Zeldin will do and say whatever it takes to appeal to the far right, even if it means raising money alongside the disgraced former president,” said Jerrel Harvey, a spokesman for Ms. Hochul’s campaign. “His blind loyalty to Trump is too dangerous for New York.”Mr. Zeldin’s allies said they were not overly concerned, particularly since Democrats would attack his ties to Mr. Trump regardless of whether they appeared together at a fund-raiser.“I got this advice a while ago from a Beltway fund-raiser,” said Mr. Fay, the Republican strategist. “If you are already getting crucified for the person or the issue, then take the money.” More

  • in

    Gov. Kathy Hochul Seeks Donations From Cuomo Appointees

    Gov. Kathy Hochul’s campaign says contributions from board and commission members and their families are fair game because she did not appoint them.ALBANY, N.Y. — On the road to building one of the largest campaign war chests the state of New York has ever seen, Gov. Kathy Hochul has been taking money from appointees of the governor — despite an executive order designed to prevent it.In her first year in office, Ms. Hochul has accepted more than $400,000 from appointees on boards from Buffalo to Battery Park City as well as the appointees’ spouses, a New York Times analysis of campaign finance data has found.The fund-raising has occurred despite the longstanding executive order — reissued by Ms. Hochul on her first day in office — that prohibits such transactions in order to avoid even the appearance of rewarding donors with jobs in exchange for contributions.Ms. Hochul’s campaign said it was appropriate to accept the contributions because they came from people appointed by her predecessor, Andrew M. Cuomo. The argument underscored a loophole in the ethics order that would seem to allow one governor to accept money from another governor’s board and commission appointees. In some cases, Ms. Hochul received donations from people Mr. Cuomo had appointed and then gave them new appointments.A spokesman for Ms. Hochul’s campaign, Jerrel Harvey, said that Ms. Hochul had not accepted money from people she appointed and emphasized that all of her fund-raising had been aboveboard.“We’ve been clear from the beginning of Governor Hochul’s term that people who are appointed by her are prevented from donating once they are appointed,” Mr. Harvey said. “We have followed that straightforward standard consistently and strictly.”But legal experts and good government advocates have called Ms. Hochul’s reasoning into question.“It’s a silly argument to say if I appointed you then you can’t contribute to me, but if my predecessor appointed you, then I can hit you up for donations,” said Bruce Green, a professor at Fordham University Law School and a former member of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board. “Going forward, presumably, they’re both going to want to be reappointed.”Ms. Hochul has already raised some $35 million and set a goal of raising as much as twice that amount ahead of the general election in November. Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesThe donations that Ms. Hochul accepted from appointees represent just a small portion of her campaign’s huge haul ahead of the election in November. She has already raised some $35 million and set a goal of raising as much as twice that amount, people familiar with her plans said. Doing so would put the 2022 governor’s race at or near the most expensive in state history.Ms. Hochul, a Democrat who was sworn in as governor after Mr. Cuomo resigned amid a scandal last year, easily defeated two primary rivals this summer and is heavily favored to win against Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican, in the fall.Although she has promised a clean break from the ways of her predecessor, Ms. Hochul’s willingness to raise money from appointees runs counter to that pledge. Mr. Cuomo was known for taking a hawkish approach to soliciting donations from the people he appointed, raising ethics concerns.Ms. Hochul’s campaign has not shrunk from accepting donations from Mr. Cuomo’s appointees, receiving more than $250,000 from them, records show.She got more than $56,000 from the real estate developer Don Capoccia, whom Mr. Cuomo appointed to the Battery Park City Authority in 2011 and who did not respond to requests for comment.She accepted more than $90,000 between October and May from a trial lawyer, Joe Belluck, who was chosen by Mr. Cuomo for two statewide panels, and his wife. Ms. Hochul appointed Mr. Belluck to the state’s new Cannabis Advisory Board in June.Mr. Belluck scoffed at the notion of any impropriety in his donation.“I receive no remuneration and do no business with the state, period,” he said. “I have no private interests related to these positions. I donate to Governor Hochul because I support her policies and admire her leadership, and I am honored to serve.”Ms. Hochul also received $45,200 from John Ernst, an heir to the Bloomingdale’s fortune, whom Mr. Cuomo appointed to the Adirondack Park Agency board in 2016, and Mr. Ernst’s wife. Less than three weeks after receiving those donations, she reappointed Mr. Ernst to the park agency’s board and made him chairman.Mr. Ernst said he initially turned down Ms. Hochul’s offer of the chairmanship, which comes with a $30,000 annual salary, and emphatically denied any connection between his donating and being appointed to the position.“If I had thought it was a conflict, I wouldn’t have done it — wouldn’t have made a contribution,” he said. “I did it independently as a citizen because I believed in Kathy Hochul.”A spokeswoman for the governor’s office, Julie Wood, said Ms. Hochul has applied the ethics order far more “broadly and strictly” than Mr. Cuomo did, saying his administration “violated their own rules.”“Governor Hochul holds herself to a higher ethical standard,” Ms. Wood said.Ms. Hochul has also accepted contributions and then appointed the donors to state boards and commissions. She received $3,000 from Robert Simpson, the chief executive of a Syracuse nonprofit that promotes economic development, in two donations and named him to the board of Empire State Development, New York’s economic development agency, less than a month after the second one.A spokeswoman for Mr. Simpson said that after he assumed the post he adopted policies to limit conflicts of interest and pledged to no longer contribute to or raise money for Ms. Hochul.Ms. Hochul accepted more than $7,800 from Janice Shorenstein, the mother of Ms. Hochul’s former transition director, Marissa Shorenstein, and Janice Shorenstein threw a fund-raiser for the governor in May. Marissa Shorenstein, who attended the event, was confirmed to the New York State Gaming Commission about two weeks later. Ms. Shorenstein and her mother did not respond to requests for comment left at their offices.And Ms. Hochul accepted another $5,000 in April from Sammy Chu, a Long Island businessman whose company also paid more than $2,100 for a Hochul fund-raiser in Plainview two days later. In late May, she tapped him for a spot on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.Mr. Chu said he learned of the rules against governors’ accepting money from appointees only when The Times informed him of them in August.“There was certainly no quid pro quo,” Mr. Chu said. “Now that I’m appointed to the board, you know, I’ll be hypervigilant about it. But at that time, I was not a nominee or a board member.”Taken together, records show, Ms. Hochul accepted at least 40 donations totaling more than $475,000 from her nominees or Mr. Cuomo’s appointees and their family members. Those appointees are sitting on more than 20 boards, commissions and public authorities across New York, including the State University of New York board, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the New York Power Authority and the United Nations Development Corporation.Ms. Hochul’s campaign stressed that she had been careful not to take contributions from any person she appointed to a state position. In at least one case, The Times found, Ms. Hochul accepted contributions from a person appointed by Mr. Cuomo, appointed that person to a different commission and then declined to accept further contributions from him.While none of the donations accepted by Ms. Hochul’s campaign from her own appointees appeared to violate any rules, they nevertheless might create the appearance of impropriety, legal experts said.Some might feel pressure to give to an elected official with power over their appointed positions. Others who wish to be appointed might donate in hopes of getting the job, said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor.“It may appear that the way to get appointed is to give money or to hold fund-raisers,” Professor Clark said, adding: “The scandal is what we allow rather than what we prohibit.”For her part, Ms. Hochul has dismissed any suggestion that her fund-raising practices might raise ethical concerns. When a reporter asked at a recent news conference if she worried about the optics of taking campaign money from people who are doing business with the state, she bristled.“I will say one sentence on this,” she said. “I follow all the rules, always have, always will.”Nicholas Fandos More

  • in

    ‘A Stirring of Democratic Hearts’: Three Writers Discuss a Transformed Midterm Landscape

    Frank Bruni, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted an online conversation with Molly Jong-Fast, the writer of the “Wait, What?” newsletter for The Atlantic, and Doug Sosnik, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton, to discuss whether the Democrats have shifted the narrative of the midterm elections.FRANK BRUNI: Doug, Molly, an apology — because we’re doing this in cyberspace rather than a physical place, I cannot offer you any refreshments, which is a shame, because I do a killer crudité.MOLLY JONG-FAST: The case of Dr. Oz is baffling. I continue to be completely in awe of how bad he is at this.DOUG SOSNIK: He is a terrible candidate, but he is really just one of many right-wing and unqualified candidates running for the Senate and governor. Herschel Walker in Georgia and most of the Republican ticket in Arizona are probably even more unqualified.BRUNI: Let’s pivot from roughage to the rough-and-tumble of the midterms. There’s a stirring of Democratic hearts, a blooming of Democratic hopes, a belief that falling gas prices, key legislative accomplishments and concern about abortion rights equal a reprieve from the kind of midterm debacle that Democrats feared just a month or two ago.Doug, do you now envision Democrats doing much better than we once thought possible?SOSNIK: I do. Up until the start of the primaries and the Dobbs decision overturning Roe, this looked like a classic midterm election in which the party in power gets shellacked. It has happened in the past four midterm elections.BRUNI: Is it possible we’re reading too much into the abortion factor?JONG-FAST: No, abortion is a much bigger deal than any of the pundit class realizes. Because abortion isn’t just about abortion.BRUNI: Doug, do you agree?SOSNIK: I am increasingly nervous about making predictions, but I do feel safe in saying that this issue will increase in importance as more people see the real-life implications of the Roe decision. So, yes, I agree that it will impact the midterms. But it will actually take on even more importance in 2024 and beyond.JONG-FAST: One of the biggest things we’ve seen since the Dobbs decision is doctors terrified to treat women who are having gynecological complications. In 1973, one of the reasons Roe was decided so broadly was because some doctors didn’t feel safe treating women. We’re having a messy return to that, which is a nightmare for the right.SOSNIK: For decades, the getting-candidates-elected wing of the Republican Party — which means people like Mitch McConnell — has had a free ride with the issue of abortion. They have been able to use it to seed their base but have not been forced to pay a political price. With the overturning of Roe, that has all changed. And polling shows that a majority of Americans don’t agree with their extreme positions.JONG-FAST: I also think a lot of suburban women are really, really mad, and people who don’t care about politics at all are furious. Remember the whole news cycle devoted to the 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio having to go out of state for an abortion. Roe is seismic.BRUNI: I noticed that in an NBC News poll released last week, abortion wasn’t one of the top five answers when voters were asked about the most important issue facing the country. Fascinatingly — and to me, hearteningly — more voters chose threats to democracy than the cost of living or jobs and the economy. Do you think that could truly be a motivating, consequential factor in the midterms? Or do you think abortion will still make the bigger difference?SOSNIK: There are two issues in midterms: turnout and persuasion. I am quite confident that the abortion issue will motivate people to vote. The NBC poll shows that Democrats have closed the enthusiasm gap for voting to two points, which since March is a 15-point improvement. And for persuasion, those suburban women swing voters will be motivated by this issue to not only vote but to vote against the Republicans.BRUNI: Is this election really going to be all about turnout, or will swing voters matter just as much? And which groups of Democratic voters are you most worried won’t, in the end, turn out to the extent that they should?SOSNIK: Yes, this midterm will be primarily about turnout. For Democrats, I would start by worrying about young people turning out, which was no doubt on the administration’s mind when it released a plan on Wednesday to forgive student loans.There is also a pretty sizable group of Democrats who have soured on President Biden. They are critical for the Democrats to turn out.BRUNI: Molly, Doug just mentioned President Biden’s announcement that he was forgiving some college debt for some Americans. Is that decision likely to be a net positive for the party, drawing grateful voters to the polls, or a net negative, alienating some Democrats — and energizing many Republicans — who think he’s being fiscally profligate and playing favorites?JONG-FAST: I grew up extremely privileged and for years grappled with the issue of fairness. In my mind, $10,000 was the floor for debt forgiveness. I am particularly pleased with the $20,000 for Pell grant recipients who qualify. I never thought America was a fair country, and it’s become increasingly unfair. Biden was elected with this promise, and he’s keeping it. I think that should help turn out the base.SOSNIK: Student loan forgiveness is a Rorschach test for voters. If you believe in government and a progressive agenda, it is great news. If you think that the Democrats are a bunch of big spenders and worried about the elites — the 38 percent of the country that gets a four-year college degree — then it will work against them.BRUNI: Will former President Donald Trump’s feud with the Department of Justice and the F.B.I. after the Mar-a-Lago search boost Republican turnout and work to the party’s advantage?JONG-FAST: Trump has been fighting with parts of the government for years. I’m not sure how fresh that narrative is. The people who are Trump’s people will continue to be Trump’s people, but much of this persecution-complex narrative is old.SOSNIK: The F.B.I. raid goes with several other items — Jan. 6, Roe, the Trump-endorsed right-wing nominees — that are driving this to be what I’d call a choice election.There have been only two elections since World War II when the incumbent party did not lose House seats in the midterms — 1998 and 2002 — 2002 was an outlier, since it was really a reaction to 9/11.Nineteen ninety-eight was a choice election: We were in the middle of impeachment when the country largely felt that the Republicans were overreaching; 2022 could be only the second choice midterm election since World War II.BRUNI: Democratic hopes focus on keeping control of the Senate or even expanding their majority there. Is the House a lost cause?JONG-FAST: The result of the special election in New York’s 19th Congressional District on Tuesday — widely considered a bellwether contest for control of the House in November, and in which the Democrat, Pat Ryan, beat a well-known, favored Republican, Marc Molinaro, by two points — makes people think that it is possible for Democrats to keep the House.I know that Democrats have about dozens of fewer safe seats than Republicans. And they hold a very slim majority — Republicans need to pick up a net of five seats to regain the majority. But I still think it’s possible Democrats hold the House.SOSNIK: It will be very difficult for the Democrats to hold the House. They have one of the narrowest margins in the House since the late-19th century. Because of reapportionment and redistricting, the Republicans have a much more favorable battlefield. There are now, in the new map, 16 seats held by Democrats in districts that would have likely voted for Trump. Expecting a bad cycle, over 30 Democrats in the House announced that they would retire.The Cook Report has the Republicans already picking up a net of seven seats, with the majority of the remaining competitive races held by Democrats.BRUNI: I’m going to list Democratic candidates in high-profile Senate races in purple or reddish states that aren’t incontrovertibly hostile terrain for the party. For each candidate, tell me if you think victory is probable, possible or improbable. Be bold.John Fetterman, Pennsylvania.SOSNIK: Probable.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: Raphael Warnock, Georgia.SOSNIK: Probable.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: Cheri Beasley, North Carolina.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Possible.BRUNI: Val Demings, Florida.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Ugh, Florida.BRUNI: Mark Kelly, Arizona.SOSNIK: Probable.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: Mandela Barnes, Wisconsin.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: Tim Ryan, Ohio.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Possible.BRUNI: Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada.SOSNIK: Possible.JONG-FAST: Probable.BRUNI: ​​ Name a Democratic candidate this cycle — for Senate, House or governor — who has most positively surprised and impressed you, and tell me why.JONG-FAST: Fetterman is really good at this, and so is his wife. Ryan has been really good. I think Mandela Barnes is really smart. I’ve interviewed all of those guys for my podcast and thought they were just really good at messaging in a way Democrats are historically not. Val Demings is a once-in-a-lifetime politician, but Florida is Florida.SOSNIK: Tim Ryan. I don’t know if he can win, but he has proved that a Democrat can be competitive in a state that I now consider a Republican stronghold.BRUNI: OK, let’s do a lightning round of final questions. For starters, the Biden presidency so far, rated on a scale of 1 (big disappointment) to 5 (big success), with a sentence or less justifying your rating.JONG-FAST: Four. I wasn’t a Biden person, but he’s quietly gotten a lot done, more than I thought he could.SOSNIK: Four. They have accomplished a lot under very difficult circumstances.BRUNI: The percentage chance that Biden runs for a second term?JONG-FAST: Fifty percent.SOSNIK: Twenty-five percent.BRUNI: If Biden doesn’t run and there’s a Democratic primary, name someone other than or in addition to Kamala Harris whom you’d like to see enter the fray, and tell me in a phrase why.JONG-FAST: I hate this question. I want to move to a pineapple under the sea.SOSNIK: Sherrod Brown. He is an authentic person who understands the pulse of this country.JONG-FAST: I also like Sherrod Brown.BRUNI: What’s the one issue you think is being most shortchanged, not just in discussions about the midterms but in our political discussions generally?JONG-FAST: The Supreme Court. If Democrats keep the House and the Senate, Biden is still going to have to deal with the wildly out-of-step courts. He will hate doing that, but he’s going to have to.SOSNIK: I agree with Molly. On a broader level, we have just completed a realignment in American politics where class, more than race, is driving our politics.BRUNI: Last but by no means least, you must spend either an hour over crudité with the noted gourmand Mehmet Oz or an hour gardening with the noted environmentalist Herschel Walker. What do you choose, and briefly, why?JONG-FAST: I’m a terrible hypochondriac, and Oz was an extremely good surgeon. I would spend an hour with him talking about all my medical anxieties. Does this mole look like anything?SOSNIK: The fact that you are raising that question tells you how bad the candidate recruitment has been for the Republicans this cycle.Other than carrying a football and not getting tackled, Walker has not accomplished much in his life, and his pattern of personal behavior shows him to be unfit to hold elected office.BRUNI: Well, I once spent hours with Oz for a profile and watched him do open-heart surgery, so I’m pulling weeds with Walker, just out of curiosity. And for the fresh air.Frank Bruni (@FrankBruni) is a professor of public policy at Duke, the author of the book “The Beauty of Dusk” and a contributing Opinion writer. He writes a weekly email newsletter and can be found on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) writes the “Wait, What?” newsletter for The Atlantic. Doug Sosnik was a senior adviser in President Bill Clinton’s White House from 1994 to 2000 and is a counselor to the Brunswick Group.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    What Two Primaries Reveal About the Decline of Working-Class Democrats

    The results of the Democratic congressional primaries in New York City on Tuesday give us a hint of just how far the working-class liberalism once associated with city politics has declined. The winners of two races in particular, Jerrold Nadler and Daniel Goldman, who will almost surely represent much of Manhattan (and a bit of Brooklyn) in the House, emerged as the victors of complicated congressional primaries in districts that were redrawn to reflect national shifts in population.They represent different kinds of New York City Democrats — Mr. Nadler, a longtime congressman, has deep roots in the old grass-roots liberalism of the Upper West Side, while Mr. Goldman is a political newcomer whose star has risen through his association with opposition to Donald Trump — but their shared success nonetheless highlights socioeconomic divisions in Manhattan that have a long history.The primaries reflected the tensions and divisions within contemporary liberalism itself and raise the question of how (or whether) Democrats can effectively represent such radically different constituencies.The changes in the city districts were a result of math — subtraction, to be specific. New York State lost a seat in the House because its population came up short by 89 people in a census conducted in 2020, at the height of Covid in New York. Indeed, if so many New Yorkers had not died in the early months of the pandemic, these contests — particularly the one that pitted Mr. Nadler against his House colleague Carolyn Maloney — would almost certainly not have taken place.Beyond the numbers, though, the primaries were part of a continuing story of class divisions in New York City. In the mid-1930s, the Columbia University sociologist Caroline Ware wrote a study of Greenwich Village that focused on the Irish and Italian immigrants who moved there in the late 19th century and whose Catholic churches still dot the neighborhood.Some at the time saw the Village as a success story of immigrant assimilation. But Professor Ware had a different interpretation. The people of the Village, she suggested, lived side by side but had little contact with one another. They were left to navigate a complicated city as “isolated individuals rather than as part of coherent social wholes.”The national Democratic Party faces a similar class divide between highly educated urbanites and the working-class voters for whom it often claims to speak. It’s no secret that the party has moved away from the fiercely pro-union New Deal politics of the mid-20th century. For much of the 20th century, New York State’s congressional delegation included more than 40 representatives (compared with 27 today), a voting bloc that generally collaborated in support of an expansive social welfare state and working-class interests. New York representatives included many of the country’s most left-leaning politicians (like the Upper West Side’s Bella Abzug).Mr. Nadler and Mr. Goldman come from different backgrounds, politically and economically. Mr. Nadler grew up in the city and got active in politics opposing the Vietnam War. Mr. Goldman is a Washington native who attended Sidwell Friends, Yale, Stanford; he served as assistant U.S. attorney with Preet Bharara in the Southern District of New York.For Mr. Nadler, despite his victory on Tuesday night, the political world he emerged from no longer exists as a vital force. This is in part because of transformations within Democratic politics.Mr. Nadler’s political career was forged at a pivotal moment in the aftermath of New York’s fiscal crisis of the 1970s. He was first elected to the State Assembly in 1976. In the following years, Democratic city officials were forced to increase subway fares, close public hospitals, charge tuition at CUNY and cease to embrace a politically ambitious role for local government. Mr. Nadler was elected to Congress in the early 1990s, when Democratic leaders like Bill Clinton proclaimed the end of the era of big government and were most optimistic about free trade and deregulation despite its impact on cities like New York.He has supported many measures over his long career that would aid working-class people, but at the same time the Democrats have generally backed away from politics that would more forcefully address inequality and the economic divide.Meanwhile, the economic fortunes of Manhattan were also changing — as part of an effort to secure a steadier tax base in the aftermath of the collapse of manufacturing, the city under Ed Koch began to reorient its economy toward Wall Street and real estate development.As Wall Street became an engine of the city’s economy in the administration of Michael Bloomberg, Manhattan’s demographics began moving in largely the opposite direction from the city as a whole. From 2010 to 2020, the white and Asian share of the borough’s population grew, while the Black and Latino share fell.Today, the institutions that had once helped to stitch together constituencies from different ethnic and racial backgrounds, like unions, are far weaker in the city and nationally than they once were. People confront the problems of living in New York through the lens of personal ambition — as “isolated individuals,” as Professor Ware put it — rather than through collective efforts to improve the city’s life.The narrow victory of Mr. Goldman illustrates even more sharply the political crisis of working-class New York. In addition to being an heir to the Levi-Strauss fortune, Mr. Goldman is a type well known to denizens of Lower Manhattan, a successful lawyer who was able to self-fund his campaign. He is clearly a candidate whose political appeal was strongest for the new leaders of the Village and Lower Manhattan, the professional upper classes who work in law firms and investment banks, who fund their children’s schools’ parent-teacher associations and the park conservancies.This is a social world that has little meaningful overlap with the working-class population, often Asian and Latino, that still dwells here but lacks the confident political organization and alliances with the middle class that it once possessed.Mr. Goldman’s political fortunes rose with his role as lead counsel in the first impeachment suit against Mr. Trump; his path to the House was largely paved by this rather than any deep engagement with the kinds of material issues that affect the lives of working- or even middle-class New Yorkers.Mr. Goldman’s race was very close — he won by roughly 1,300 votes. The runner-up, Yuh-Line Niou, a state assemblywoman, ran a campaign whose rhetoric focused on class appeals, but unions and progressive groups proved unable to act in a coordinated way to support any single candidate in a crowded field.Despite their different backgrounds, both Mr. Goldman and Mr. Nadler embody a Manhattan that has shifted in ways that affect not only its own politics but those of the country at large. Their careers point to the divides that Professor Ware pointed out decades ago.In her account, the Village — and New York, and America as a whole — faced the problem of how to respond to the collective problems of a modern industrial society through the lens of a political culture that had been shaped by ruthless individual acquisition. The particular problems have changed, and yet Lower Manhattan remains home to a population that, as dense as it is, is intensely divided by class and ethnicity, that is characterized (as Professor Ware put it) by “an almost complete lack of community integration.”The bitter politics of the August primaries, which reveal yet again the declining power of New York’s liberalism, are the result.Kim Phillips-Fein, a historian at Columbia University, is the author, most recently, of “Fear City: New York’s Fiscal Crisis and the Rise of Austerity Politics” and “Invisible Hands: The Businessmen’s Crusade Against the New Deal.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    Republican Wins Special House Election in Rural New York

    Joe Sempolinski, a local Republican Party leader and former congressional aide, won a special election on Tuesday for a vacant House seat in western New York, according to The Associated Press, keeping the sprawling rural district under Republican control.The race was surprisingly close, but Mr. Sempolinski was ultimately able to capitalize on his deep Republican Party ties in one of the most conservative regions of the state to repel a Democratic challenge by Max Della Pia, an Air Force veteran.Mr. Sempolinski had won 53 percent of the vote, compared with 47 percent for Mr. Della Pia, with 95 percent of votes counted. Mr. Trump won the district by 12 points in 2020.In the short term, the Republican victory will serve to tighten Democrats’ already narrow margin in the House of Representatives in Washington. The seat in the 23rd Congressional District, centered in New York’s rural Southern Tier and running west to Lake Erie, had been vacant since Representative Tom Reed, a Republican, left the House in May to take a position at a Washington lobbying firm.Mr. Sempolinski’s time in Washington will be short-lived. A former aide to Mr. Reed and a current Republican county chairman, he does not plan to run for a full term in November’s midterm election.“I am looking forward to hitting the ground running and making sure constituent services are back up and working” Mr. Sempolinski, 39, said on Tuesday night after securing the victory. “We have no time to waste.”Despite his defeat in the special election, Mr. Della Pia, 69, will be on the ballot again in November as the Democratic nominee for the newly reconfigured 23rd District. On the campaign trail, he has highlighted his long military service, stressed a bipartisan approach to governance and said he would prioritize creating jobs and protecting the environment.Mr. Della Pia will face the winner of a bitter Republican primary contest between Carl P. Paladino, a wealthy businessman known for his impolitic public statements, and Nick Langworthy, the chairman of the New York Republican Party.The new district, which will include portions of suburban and exurban Buffalo in addition to the Southern Tier, still heavily favors Republicans. But if Mr. Paladino prevails, his far right positions and explosive statements on race and history could make the race more competitive. More

  • in

    Nadler Routs Maloney in Marquee Showdown of Bruising New York Primaries

    Representative Jerrold Nadler, the influential chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, handily defeated his longtime congressional neighbor, Carolyn B. Maloney, in a bruising three-way primary battle on Tuesday that was preordained to end one of the powerful Democrats’ political careers.The star-crossed skirmish in the heart of Manhattan was unlike any New York City — or the Democratic Party writ large — had seen in recent memory. Though few ideological differences were at stake, it pitted two committee chairs who have served side by side in Washington since the 1990s against each other, and cleaved party faithful into rival factions.Allies had tried to pull Mr. Nadler off the collision course into a neighboring race after the state’s calamitous redistricting process unexpectedly combined their West and East Side districts this spring. But he pushed forward, relying in a lightning-fast campaign on his reputation as an old-school progressive and leading foil to Donald J. Trump to win over voters in one of the nation’s most liberal districts.“Here’s the thing: I’m a New Yorker, just like Bella Abzug, Ted Weiss and Bill Fitts Ryan,” Mr. Nadler, 75, told supporters after his victory, referencing liberal lions who represented New York in Congress. “We New Yorkers just don’t know how to surrender.”Mr. Nadler, in thanking Ms. Maloney, said that the two had “spent much of our adult life working together to better New York and our nation.”He won the contest for New York’s redrawn 12th District with 56 percent of the vote, compared with Ms. Maloney’s 24 percent, with 93 percent of votes counted. A third candidate, Suraj Patel, earned 19 percent, siphoning crucial votes away from Ms. Maloney, whom he nearly beat two years ago.It all but assures Mr. Nadler a 16th full term in Congress and Ms. Maloney’s political retirement.The race — which ended in underhanded jabs about Mr. Nadler’s mental and physical fitness — was the highlight of a string of ugly primary contests that played out across the state on Tuesday, from Long Island to Buffalo, as Democrats and Republicans each fought over rival personalities and the ideological direction of their parties.In another of the most closely watched contests, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, the moderate lawmaker tasked with protecting Democrats’ narrow House majority, easily fended off a challenge from Alessandra Biaggi, a state senator and a rising star of New York’s left wing.The race in the lower Hudson Valley had become an ideological proxy fight, and Ms. Biaggi’s defeat was the latest high-profile setback for leftists in New York. The former President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi endorsed Mr. Maloney, while Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez publicly backed Ms. Biaggi.“Tonight, mainstream won,” Mr. Maloney said in his victory speech. He will face Mike Lawler, a Republican assemblyman, in what may be a competitive general election.Outside Buffalo, Carl Paladino, a businessman known for his explosive, sometimes racist remarks, was leading a Republican primary against Nick Langworthy, the state Republican chairman who entered the race because he feared that Mr. Paladino could harm the party’s statewide ticket in November.A 13-candidate Democratic primary in the new 10th District connecting Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan remained too close to call, as Daniel S. Goldman held a narrow lead. The results were similarly close in a special election for a Hudson Valley swing seat, vacated by Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, that could offer a preview of the general election.The primary contests were particularly painful for Democrats, who entered the election cycle optimistic that the decennial redistricting process in blue New York would yield crucial pickup opportunities to protect their loose grip on the House of Representatives this fall.Instead, the state’s highest court ruled this spring that the Democrats’ congressional map was unconstitutional and put in place a neutral alternative. It set off anguishing intraparty brawls that have drained millions of dollars that party leaders had hoped would go toward defeating Republicans and will now cost the state Ms. Maloney’s important House Oversight and Reform Committee chairmanship in Washington. More

  • in

    When Will We Know Who Won in New York and Florida Elections?

    Florida and New York are on the clock: A series of primaries on Tuesday, some fiercely competitive, are posing the latest test of each state’s efficiency at counting votes and reporting timely results.New York is holding its first primaries since it streamlined its process for counting mail-in ballots, which election experts say should reduce delays. And Florida makes few exceptions for accepting absentee ballots after in-person voting ends, so relatively few votes will remain uncounted after polls close.But close races could upend the timely reporting of results, those experts cautioned.In Florida, most of the polls close at 7 p.m. Eastern time, but voting ends an hour later for parts of the Panhandle in the Central time zone.A half-hour after the polls close, election supervisors in the 67 counties are required to report to the state early voting and vote-by-mail results that they have received by that point, said Mark Ard, a spokesman for the Florida Department of State.The first results should appear on the state’s election website shortly after 8 p.m. Eastern time, with counties required to release updates every 45 minutes until they have completed their counts, he said.Absentee ballots must be received by the counties by 7 p.m. local time, except for those from military and overseas voters. The number of uncounted ballots after Election Day should be relatively small, according to Mr. Ard, who said the state would track those totals.About 98 percent of the vote in Florida is typically counted on Election Day, said Stephen Ohlemacher, election decision editor for The Associated Press.In the 2020 general election, 100 percent of Florida’s precincts had reported election results as of 1:02 a.m. Eastern time the morning after the election, according to The A.P.In New York, in-person voting ends statewide at 9 p.m. Eastern time. Under a new state law, counties must start processing mail-in ballots within four days of receiving them and may begin tabulating those results an hour before the polls close, Mr. Ohlemacher noted. In the past, he said, the counting of mail-in ballots did not start until a week after the election.The change already had a major effect during the June 28 primaries in New York, which hosted intraparty contests for governor and the State Assembly, the lower chamber of the Legislature. Just 1 percent of the vote remained uncounted after Election Day. In the 2020 general election, it was 23 percent, according to The A.P.But New York continues to lag behind other states in providing information about the number of mail-in ballots cast, Mr. Ohlemacher said, adding that this could delay The A.P. from determining who wins close races.Counties will start to post results in real time on the state’s election results website around 10 p.m. Eastern time, said Jennifer Wilson, a spokeswoman for the New York State Board of Elections. More