More stories

  • in

    Interview: Lee Zeldin Talks to the New York Times Editorial Board

    Lee Zeldin is a Republican congressman who has represented eastern Long Island since 2015.This interview with Mr. Zeldin was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on Oct. 19.Read the board’s endorsement for the governor’s race in New York here.Kathleen Kingsbury: So, as has been reported in our paper and others, the day before the 2020 election was called for Joe Biden, you texted Mark Meadows offering ways to promote allegations of voting irregularities as a fund-raising tool.Can you talk us through why you did that? Now there have been dozens of courts that have found that there was no actual basis in fact to those allegations. Do you accept that there was no widespread voter fraud?So, two parts to that.Kathleen Kingsbury: Yes.First, as you pointed out, it was the very beginning of November. And the reason why I sent that message was because I was seeing all of the allegations being thrown out as one. There was a vetted, confirmed concern mixed with an unvetted, unconfirmed concern or allegation.And it was undermining the ability for people to understand everything that was getting thrown at them. Every allegation of wrongdoing on social media was being slapped as absolutely true the moment it was being tweeted out. It’s true. There are some people who claim that, for the first time in the history of our country, we had the first perfect election.And I was coming out of an election where, even in the 1st Congressional District of New York, we had hundreds of ballots that were thrown out because of the Republican and Democrat election and commissioner agreed that the signatures didn’t match. There are people in our race in 2020 who were arrested for trying to get absentee ballots for dead relatives. There’s a lot of different things that happened just in my own congressional district on the east end of Long Island.[In 2020, New York State and county officials in Long Island found that there was virtually no evidence of election fraud.]I thought that it was very important to separate what was true and not true, or what was confirmed and not confirmed, vetted, unvetted. And everything was getting thrown together. And I would say, even still to this day, a lot just kind of got thrown together.[Dozens of courts across the country found that there was virtually no fraud in the 2020 election.]And I’m glad that, in your question, you pointed out that this was before the race was even confirmed. I don’t even — I would have to go back and look to see who was even ahead at that moment. I don’t remember. I would have to go back and check that out. With communications —Jyoti Thottam: But now that the courts have found that there was no basis in fact for any of those allegations?[In the days after the 2020 election, The New York Times spoke with election officials in every state, who said that no irregularities affected the results: “Top election officials across the country said in interviews and statements that the process had been a remarkable success despite record turnout and the complications of a dangerous pandemic.”]Well, I don’t think they — so I don’t think that the conclusion is that this was, in fact, the first perfect election in the history of the country. My concerns, what I have stated on the record, what I said on the floor of the House of Representatives —Jyoti Thottam: What do you believe now?Well, let me answer. What I stated then is what I still say today. My concern has been about a constitutional question. You have nonstate legislative actors who were, in the name of the pandemic, changing how an election is administered. You can’t do that under the United States Constitution. It’s a constitutional question.There will be more elections that will come up. There will be more natural disasters. There will be hurricanes. There might be a health emergency. The way the United States Constitution provides this is that the state legislature sets the election, the administration of elections. What you can’t do is, if you’re a governor, you’re a Secretary of State, you’re an elections commissioner, you’re someone else, say that in the name of that hurricane that just hit a week ago, this is how I am going to change the election on my own.Jyoti Thottam: OK. So you’re talking about the Covid rules for elections.The elections changes that were made in the name of Covid. That’s how it went.Patrick Healy: But in terms of the results, do you accept that there was no widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election?Jyoti Thottam: Now. Do you accept that now?Well, as I pointed out, in my own congressional district, there were all sorts of issues.Patrick Healy: The widespread, national —Well, you can multi —Patrick Healy: — voter fraud.See, you can multiply what happened in my district times whatever. I’m one of 435 congressional districts. If you’re asking me to quantify exactly how much of that happened across the country, none of us at this table know.Patrick Healy: But there have been repeated court cases that people have brought to bear making allegations of voter fraud, and courts have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud there across the board. So that’s what we’re trying to understand, is your view now in alignment with the courts.Listen, I really appreciate you asking, and I know that it’s important, and it’s important to all of you. I don’t know how to quantify nationwide what happened. All I know from the most personal of experiences was what we went through in the 1st Congressional District in New York. At no point have I ever called, have you ever heard the word come out of my mouth, have I ever said that the election of Joe Biden is illegitimate.There’s a reason why I don’t say that. I love our country. OK? I’m in my 20th year in the Army. I had Reserve duty this past Saturday. I was wearing that uniform, which is a lot better than wearing this uniform. What I saw in the Capitol that day, on Jan. 6, I was on the floor of the House of Representatives, the moment that I learned what happened, I instantly condemned it.I put out a statement. I wanted them out of the Capitol. We have a House of Representatives. You elect people to represent you. You have an objection that you want to have debated, you do that through your representatives. There’s no room for violence inside of that Capitol. Breaking windows, stealing things, absolutely none of it was welcome. I didn’t want to see it in the past. I don’t want to ever see it in a future for any purpose, red, blue, left, right, and whatever the year.Patrick Healy: But in terms of responsibility, that night, you — it’s been reported you made an equivocal statement saying, this isn’t just about President Trump. This is also about the left and about activists. Who do you see as to blame for that event?[On the night of the Capitol riot, Mr. Zeldin appeared on Fox News and suggested that Democrats and “rogue state actors” were to blame for undermining election integrity.]Well, you’re referring to a statement that I was making referring to what was being debated on the floor of the House of Representatives, which is different than asking me to comment on someone breaking into the Capitol, breaking things and stealing things. My comment as far as violence and breaking things and stealing things has — from the very first moment that I learned of it — has always been condemning that.Now, every single time a Republican has won the presidency for the last few decades, on Jan. 6, people have stated objections. And that’s part of the constitutional process. If it’s Jan. 6 of 2025 and — well, listen, I was on the floor of the House of Representatives Jan. 6 of 2017. And there were debates that were had.There were objections being filed claiming that Russia decided this election, that it was because of Russian influence that Trump won. That was an objection that was filed. If on Jan. 6 of 2025, regardless of whether a Republican wins or a Democrat wins, if any member of Congress wants to stand on the floor of the United States Congress and submit an objection that they believe that Martians decided the November 2024 election, you can do that. That’s fine. Whatever —Kathleen Kingsbury: If you lose this race, will you concede?If I lose?Kathleen Kingsbury: Yes.Of course.Alex Kingsbury: Have you watched any of the Jan. 6 commission hearings?Very little.Alex Kingsbury: Very little? Do you think, given all that we know now, that what happened on Jan. 6 meets the definition of an insurrection?Well, legally? Well, as an attorney, no. If you were to get — if you were to look at an individual case with facts that — maybe you know more than I do — and there was evidence to meet the elements, then I might give you a different answer.As far as the event goes, the use of the word insurrection has been an evolution of the legal term into one that’s been perceived to be an insurrection. But if you’re asking me if it meets the legal definition of what an insurrection is, there’s a reason why the D.O.J. has not charged it.Kathleen Kingsbury: I want to move on to your role as, potentially, as governor. You’ve said that, if elected, you would declare a state of emergency and refuse to enforce criminal justice laws passed by the Legislature. How do you justify refusing to enforce the laws of the state that you want to lead?A few things. One is I come from a legislature. My Plan A is I want to work with anyone of any party. Georgetown University and the Lugar Center ranked — they have an annual bipartisan index. The last year that they ranked, I was 19 out of 435. Year before that, I was 12. We can debate. We can disagree. You all have strong opinions. You’re The New York Times editorial board. At the end of the day, there’s a job to try to find common ground however possible to move a state forward, a city forward, a country forward.My Plan A is I would love to be able to sit down with the New York State Legislature to try to figure this out. And this is not a Republican versus Democrat issue. The mayor of the City of New York says that judges should have discretion to weigh dangerousness. He wants to amend, raise the age, and he’s right. As far as a state of emergency goes, this isn’t anything that’s unprecedented. Right now there’s a gun violence state of emergency in the State of New York. It was declared by Andrew Cuomo. It was continued by Kathy Hochul.[Mr. Zeldin’s proposals to declare a state of emergency over crime and remove D.A. Alvin Bragg would almost certainly be challenged in the courts.]Governor after governor after governor have submitted these or declared these emergencies. Kathy Hochul declared a Covid emergency and utilized that power to suspend New York’s competitive bidding laws. And that’s a whole other question and a whole other conversation of what she did with that. I do not have the power to repeal a law by myself. But the way the law works — this is something that is a product of a process in the past, has given the governor the ability to suspend a law for 30 days.I want to bring the State Legislature to the table. Plan A is that they come to the table. Plan B is that I bring them to the table. And I would also add, with a very high level of confidence, that if you all did your own single issue survey right now of New Yorkers and you ask them what they think of what I’m saying that we need to do, you will find that the will of the people is that they want this to happen. What they want is Plan A, and what I say they want is Plan B.Jyoti Thottam: OK. So again, to the will of the people, you said that if elected governor, you would fire the Manhattan D.A., Alvin Bragg. How do you justify removing a public servant who’s been elected by the people of New York?The New York State Constitution. The New York State Constitution, we know in New York, we don’t have recall elections. But when they crafted the New York State Constitution, they specifically gave the governor the authority to remove a district attorney who refuses to enforce the law.[The New York State constitution gives the governor authority to initiate proceedings to remove some officials, with due process.]Alvin Bragg has chosen, from Day 1 that he’s been in office, to refuse all sorts of laws across the board and all sorts of other laws he wants to treat as lesser included offenses. He’s not doing his job. Now, will of the people, what I would do is go to the people of Manhattan, the mayor of the City of New York, the borough president. I’m not trying to make some power move where you’re replacing Alvin Bragg with some Republican or some conservative. This is Manhattan Borough.Jyoti Thottam: Why not let the people of Manhattan —100 percent. Yes.Jyoti Thottam: — another D.A. wins.They should. That would be —Jyoti Thottam: So isn’t it anti-democratic to just replace —I have a job to keep the people in New York safe as the governor of the State of New York. I would say, it’s not just a constitutional authority. It’s a constitutional duty. And it’s the first action the first day that I’m in office that I would do, would be telling Alvin Bragg that he’s being removed. He is refusing to do his job.I get an experience as a member of Congress or as just, you could say some average or random New Yorker or maybe as a candidate for governor, I spend a lot of time with the people of this state. I spent a lot of time in blue counties and red counties, Republicans, Democrats and independents. And if this editorial board took a field trip with me — by the way, this is total man on the street, man, woman on the street. We’ll see how it goes.But if we were talking to people out on the street right now, what is their top issue? What is most important to you? What do you want to — why does this race matter? Why does this moment matter? What do you want to see have happen? You’ll find that the issues that I talk about, the positions that I have, are more in tune to what the New Yorkers on the street are asking for. And if our field trip never made it outside, if we only spoke to your security guards on the first floor here, I would imagine that they passionately, passionately agree with me on these topics. And that’s without even talking to them about the topics.Eleanor Randolph: So your first day in office, you’re going to get rid of Alvin Bragg. Who are you going to replace him with? Do you know?I would be asking — there’s only one thing that’s absolutely necessary about who he gets replaced with. The person needs to do the job. Now, what I would do is go to the mayor of the City of New York, and this would start after the election. I would go to the mayor. I’ll go to the borough president. I’ll go to the local elected officials and community leaders. Give me names. The only thing that I care about is that they will do the job.Kathleen Kingsbury: And doing the job is bringing the crime rate down?Doing the job is enforcing the law. Enforcing the law, you work as a prosecutor. There’s a role working with a judge. There’s a role in working with defense counsel. If there’s a law on the books that you don’t agree with, you advocate to change the law. So the problem with Alvin Bragg, for example, is right now, there’s a debate over, how do you help the M.T.A.’s finances?I would offer that, if the M.T.A. was enforcing fare jumping, that there would be hundreds of millions of dollars more that the M.T.A. would have than they have right now. Now, the district attorney comes in and says, you know what? On Day 1, I’m just not going to enforce that fare jumping. And there’s all sorts of other crimes, by the way. We’ve seen the videos where that 16-year-old who gets released on a violent robbery then is trying to jump a fare. The officer tries stopping, and there’s a sense of entitlement now. You can’t.By the way, the sense of entitlement led to the fact that, when he got into the fight with the officer and he went in front of the judge, he asked whether or not he could press charges against the officer. And then he gets instantly released. So there’s all sorts of laws like this, where I believe that the D.A. wants to change a law. You don’t just say, across the board, I’m not going enforce it.What you do is you make your case to whoever set the law. Maybe it’s the New York City Council. Maybe it’s at the State Legislature, depends on the law. And you maybe can bring a few friends, other D. A.s who are like minded and others, and you advocate for that change. But what Alvin Bragg does is he comes in on Day 1 and he says, all across the board with all these different offenses, I’m just not even going to charge them. You don’t have that power. You do not have the right to do that.Mara Gay: Congressman, you’ve said that you would suspend New York’s no cash bail laws —Yes.Mara Gay: — in response to concerns about crime. There is no established and clear connection between bail reform and crime. So why do you believe that this will improve public safety?So two weeks ago today, Keaira Hudson just outside of the Buffalo area was with her three kids, fearing for her life. The day before, she had told everybody who would listen, you cannot release my husband from custody, Adam Bennefield.He was charged with a slew of domestic violence offenses, and the judge ended up releasing Adam Bennefield. And what’s been said is that the judge did not have the ability to keep Adam detained. Wednesday, the next day, two weeks ago today, Keaira Hudson was murdered in front of her three kids, and she was wearing a bulletproof vest.Now, just before that, someone named Scott Saracina was rearrested for another rape. He had been released for a prior rape, served a long prison sentence. He was out on parole. He was arrested this past February, released, rearrested in March, released. He was out on the street, and in August, he allegedly raped someone else.Jyoti Thottam: Those are terrible crimes. I think we all agree, but what Mara is talking about is an established connection between the overall rate of crime and that particular bail reform law.Yeah. I just answered. That is answering the question. That’s direct causality. But anyway —Mara Gay: I’m sorry —Here’s the other —Mara Gay: I’m sorry —Here’s the —Mara Gay: I just —Here’s the issue too is the way they do the law, and one of the issues with the law that — so Eric Adams says we need to overhaul cashless bail and give judges discretion to weigh dangerousness. Even if it’s a bail-eligible offense, the judge has to — is required by the law to — establish the least restrictive means to get that person to return to court. So you can’t weigh dangerousness, even if it is a bail-eligible offense.So the problem is it’s not — there’s a very simple view of, is it bail-eligible or is it not bail- eligible? And if it is bail-eligible, what the governor says is that the judge doesn’t know the law, that the D.A. doesn’t know the law, that the judge isn’t doing their job and they need some remedial training. And the judges out there are being — they’re pretty offended by what the governor is saying. The D.A. is out there being — they’re offended by what the governor is saying, because there is a job to set bail in the least restrictive means to get them to return to court. You’re not allowed to weigh dangerousness. So that’s the overhaul that we’ve been advocating for.Now, one other thing I would say about cashless bail, the argument in favor of cashless bail, that you commit a low-level offense, you have a clean record, you’re not a flight risk, you’re not a danger. The only reason why you would stay behind bars is because you cannot afford $100. Fantastic argument. That is the best argument you can make in favor of it, and everybody agrees.But if you’re two Mexican cartel drug smugglers busted in Inwood with $1.2 million worth of crystal meth and you don’t have enough money for bail, you’re a bad drug dealer. You’re a bad criminal. You’re a bad businessman.So there’s a need to overhaul cashless bail for — I can give a very long list of where the decisions are made. I’m just giving you two recent examples. Actually, those were three recent examples — of where if the law was overhauled, judges have discretion to weigh dangerousness, that you would have a different reality on the ground as far as who is getting released, who is put back out, and who’s being detained.Eleanor Randolph: Congressman, we only have a few more minutes here, and we wanted to talk to you about Roe v. Wade. It appeared that you had cheered the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and you’ve said it would be a “great idea” to appoint an anti-abortion health commissioner.You’ve said recently that you would not change abortion laws, and I think a majority of people in the state would agree with that. There’s strong protections for abortion rights. Will you commit now to, if elected, to preserve the state’s really strong protections for abortion rights?Yes.Mara Gay: You focused a lot on inflation —And I have, by the way. That’s not a new position. That’s —Eleanor Randolph: OK. What about the health commissioner? Sorry.So the heart of my statements — it’s on video — was —Eleanor Randolph: This is NY1?Well, NY1 pulled part — I’m talking about the actual video that NY1 pulled from — is that I made a comment about how it’d be great to have a health commissioner in New York who respects life. And I was taking a shot at what’s also been part of this campaign and what’s been part of this conversation. It’s connected to what was a — I believe that the health commissioner did not handle the nursing home order and the subsequent investigation correctly.It was a shot that I took with a group saying that it would be great for New York to have a health commissioner who respects life. Now, I want the best qualified person to serve as the health commissioner and all state agencies. I want somebody who is experienced, who is a good leader, who has good work ethic. They’re not going to be picking political favorites and it’s all based on connections to —Eleanor Randolph: Well, do you want a health commissioner who is anti-abortion?It’s not a litmus test for me.Mara Gay: All right. You focused on inflation, Congressman, before. In New York, housing is actually one of the biggest drivers of cost of living increases for New Yorkers. I don’t see that you’ve offered any plan, a comprehensive plan, to deal with those costs. Do you have a plan? Can you tell us about that?And by the way, just so you understand my last statement, when I say it’s not a litmus test, it’s not a litmus test that they have to be — their position on it doesn’t just qualify them or disqualify them. You have a law in New York. And if they are exceptionally well qualified, that’s what I’m asking them about.Mara Gay: I’d like you to answer my question please. Do you mind? Do you want me to ask it again?Yeah, sorry. I was —Mara Gay: It’s OK.I got — what’s the very end?Mara Gay: Sure. Do you have a housing plan? Since that’s actually the biggest cost of how cost of living increases for New Yorkers or among the biggest costs?Yeah, we need to build more affordable housing in New York. We have people who have capital they want to spend on the projects, and they’re deciding to spend it in other states. It takes too long to be able to build these projects. The math isn’t working out for people who are investing in these projects, where they’re choosing to invest the dollars elsewhere with a bigger return.There’s a need for more affordable housing inside of the five boroughs. There’s a need for more affordable housing outside of the five boroughs. Some view success with regard to tackling homelessness that you simply put somebody in a shelter. For me, I believe that success is being able to get somebody out of a shelter, where they’re living independently.Mara Gay: Do you have a plan to address this?Yeah. You need to — we need to build more —Mara Gay: How do you plan to do that as governor?Well, you have people who want to put their private capital in, but the government is making it — the government has put in restrictions that it takes just too long to build.Mara Gay: What kind of restrictions would you remove?Well, I believe let’s just — I mean, I can think of many examples. So one would be you want to do a project. You bring in an Article 78, and you just keep on stalling out a project indefinitely. I believe that if you’re bringing an Article 78 proceeding, that you should be required to post bond. Just giving you an example.Mara Gay: Go on.If you want to do a project in a local area, you’re applying for a zoning change, and the local town is requiring you to spend $5 million on some unrelated project nowhere near it in order to get the approval, you just got extorted by the town board. I have a problem with that.I believe that there are economic challenges that people face with regard to first-time home buyers, young families who want to have their first kid or can either have in the basement of mom and dad’s house or they can go buy their own home in Cary, North Carolina. First-time home buyer tax credits and access is something that needs to be enhanced.Mara Gay: Thank you.Eleanor Randolph: So you said that you were going to allow fracking. Where would that be? Where would you allow fracking? And —The people who — go ahead.Eleanor Randolph: And aren’t you worried about pollution, water pollution, methane pollution, other problems with fracking?Everyone wants access to clean air and clean water, regardless of whether you’re Republican, Democrat, Independent. I represent a congressional district almost completely surrounded by water. I have a record —Eleanor Randolph: I understand.From the Long Island Sound, the Plum Island to National Estuary, and far more.Eleanor Randolph: But they’re not going to have fracking.The area that is begging for it is the Southern Tier of New York. And they want the state to reverse the ban on the safe extraction of natural gas. That is their ask. And they look across their border into Pennsylvania, and they see that those towns on the other side of the border have been able to tap into it. And this isn’t a Republican versus Democrat issue.This has resulted in economic development, jobs, increased revenue, lower energy costs. But yeah, no, Broome County, go visit Binghamton. Go through the Southern Tier. They’re desperate for it. And by the way, on the other side of the border, they’re tapping into the same resource of the same shales. And what was claimed up in Albany in order to get that ban put in place is not actually happening like they were claiming.No, it’s not that, on the other side of the border, everyone’s turning on their water faucets and just fires coming out. So now you have research, data, science, of all of these other states tapping into the same resource of the same shales. Now you’re better informed. I don’t believe that we should be the state that is not allowing us to tap into that at all. Now, by the way, the same person who would say, well, you might lean left ideologically, maybe a strong fan of, a passionate fan of President Biden. OK, so we cut off Russian oil imports. What’s the next move?Do we go to Iran and Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to ramp up their production? Because I guarantee you what we would be doing in the Southern Tier of New York is safer than what we are running off to to get them to rely on us. While we’re here today, we’re tapping, once again, into our oil reserves.So I understand the goal. We want to be leaders with climate change. We care about our environment. That’s something that is very important. I’m a member of the Bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. I am all for having a conversation with anyone. I’m an all-of-the-above energy guy. I’ve helped lead the fight to get ARPA-E funding for Brookhaven National Lab.If Anne’s Pancakes on the Southern Tier wants to have access to gas because, when their electric goes out, they’re still able to make their pancakes, I am all in favor of Anne’s Pancakes doing that. If someone else wants to put solar panels on their home, God bless them. If they have a farm and they want to put up a windmill, go for it. But the idea that people who favor wind and solar are saying that Anne’s Pancakes can’t hook up into gas, I have a problem.Alex Kingsbury: I’d like to ask you about guns. You said that you’re in favor of repealing the SAFE Act, you’re against red flag laws and for concealed carry. I want to know where you draw the line. Would you like to see open carry? Would you like to see the AR-15s in Times Square? Where — in a state that is very pro-gun control — where do you personally go?So for example, you said red flag laws. The person who shot up Tops supermarket in Buffalo should have not had access to any firearm. The red flag was clear as day. The person shouldn’t have access to any weapon at all. He threatened to shoot up a school. The system needs to work that whoever becomes aware of that input is part of the process of making sure that law enforcement at every level, federal, state, local, local school district if they’re the ones coming in contact with the threat.That person should have not had access to any weapon. Now, two changes that can also be made at the same time to make sure you’re implementing a red flag law correctly is that, if you want to try to remove somebody else’s firearm, I believe that they have a right to be represented and that hearing has a place. And that when the appeal is done, that the burden should be clear and convincing evidence, which is a very high legal bar to be met, in order to prove that you’re worthy of getting it back when you weren’t even represented in the original proceeding.Secondly, is if someone is making up a fictitious claim just to try to get back at somebody, there’s no consequences in New York, and there should be. So what I have stated as it relates to red flag laws has been consistent with everything that I just told you. Now, New York’s concealed carry law that was recently enacted is going to be overturned by the federal courts. It was — everyone woke up on a Friday morning. It was the week after the Bruen decision. There was no bill. By that afternoon, there was a bill signing.Now, people who are politicians here in New York City, they’re used to having 1,700 amazing parks all throughout the city. You have a small little park on your street corner. Well, there’s this place called the Adirondack, and it’s a whole bunch of different counties and different regions. Now, you all know this. But there are state legislators who wrote their bill and included that. Now, they said, well no, it doesn’t include that. Well, that’s the problem with rushing a bill.I happen to believe that the best way to do a bill is not just talking to the people who you’re relying on to get their vote but also talking to other people who you’ll never get their vote. Because if you ask them, why do you oppose a bill, they’ll give you a good reason. So with the SAFE Act, for example, if I wanted to, if I was a gun manufacturer, I can create a SAFE Act compliant rifle that includes a whole bunch of features where, under the SAFE act, if you have a single one of those features, it’s illegal. Because it makes it look scary.So you take a rifle, and you add a single feature to it, a pistol grip, a thumb grip, a flash suppressor, a muzzle compressor, a collapsible butt stock. You add a single feature, and you say, OK, now it’s an assault rifle. But there are other firearms that are more lethal, but they don’t look as scary. And I can manufacture for you a firearm that includes a whole bunch of the features I just told you, and it’s perfectly legal the way that they wrote it. And that’s not the only piece of this effect. There are other problems with it as well.The new concealed carry law tramples all over First Amendment rights to trample all over Second Amendment rights. It might actually end up getting overturned first on just having to provide your social media accounts to prove to the government your good moral character or whatever they very vaguely defined it. They didn’t even say what they meant. They wrote the law without even saying what you have to prove to the government. So what? One county to the next is who’s a good person and who’s a bad person?So there was a problem with how they drafted the new law. They went even further than the past law, and it’s going to get overturned by the courts. And can I — one other thing too is there’s two different things between the law-abiding gun owner who wants to safely and securely carry a firearm solely for self-defense. And there are people with illegal firearms committing crime after crime after crime, and the system still has them on the street. So when Governor Hochul, a few day — a few weeks ago, she put out her tweet. She says that she demands that American Express and Mastercard and Visa flag every attempted purchase as a suspicious purchase.[An approved state measure would standardize credit or debit card transactions for gun stores and help credit card companies to flag suspicious activity.]I just had — two Sundays ago, I had a gang-related drive by on my front yard with my two girls at home. And I don’t know who the shooters were. I don’t know what the firearm was that they used. I don’t know what their motive is, but I guarantee you that however that person or persons acquired that firearm, it did not start with a swipe of the American Express card. The way that we approach this entire conversation should be one not going after, because too often, we just end up drafting a policy that goes after the law-abiding gun owner. We should be drafting policies going after the criminal committing crime after crime after crime, and they’re still out on the street.Alex Kingsbury: But actually, the reason New York has such a low gun death rate is because it has strict gun laws compared to states that don’t, both suicides and homicides. Relax the gun laws, you get more gun deaths. Are you content with that?When was the last time that a concealed carry holder committed any one of the offenses in New York?Mara Gay: Donald Trump endorsed you. Talk to us about your path to victory in a state that he lost by over 20 percentage points.I’m here today out of respect to all of you. OK? Listen, the editorial —If I was doing this based off of maybe like the last time you guys issued an endorsement and I got my feelings hurt, I wouldn’t have walked in the front door. And it is out of respect to you, and you can ask whatever questions you want. I’m happy to answer them. But the reason why we’re going to win this race is because outside on the street, when you go take that field trip and you ask people, what is your top issue? What are your top issues? What are you looking for in the race?I’m sitting here talking about rising crime and rising costs, and Kathy Hochul is talking about Donald Trump. So that’s — as far as a path to the victory, we are right on the issues that New Yorkers are saying are most important to them. We started 18 months ago. In my first six months, I campaigned at least twice in every county in the entire state. And we just continued campaigning hard, all across the state, to meet as many people as we can.But the reason why we’re going to win the race is because the people who are actually on the street right now feel like we need to save the state, and they want to restore balance to Albany. And they also realize, with some of the policies that we’re discussing, that there’s going to be a balance of power up in Albany, that we’re not — this isn’t an election of whether or not we’re going to go from one-party Democrat rule to one-party Republican rule. It’s not on the table, and the average person knows that.Mara Gay: It’s long been the case, unfortunately, that Black communities disproportionately suffer from violent crime. Given that and given your campaign is so focused on it, how do you expect to do with Black voters?We introduced our pathways plan. Some of the topics we talked about here today have been part of our campaign throughout, whether it’s upward economic mobility. We haven’t even spoken about the quality of education in our schools. I support lifting the cap on charter schools. I support school choice. I believe that we have kids trapped in multigenerational poverty.We spend two and a half times as much on kids — on education per pupil than you see in places, not just Florida, Mississippi, these other places where the kids who are Black, Hispanic, low income are actually performing at a higher level on the same exact tests than our kids here, even though we spend two and a half times as much. I think education is very important to the Black community. I believe in upward economic mobility. We’re talking housing.Crime is part of it, and there’s more to that. So all of this is part of it, but it’s important to show up. So when I was elected to the Third Senate District in 2010, I had Brentwood, Central, Islip and North Bellport. People would tell me, don’t go to those areas. They’ll never vote for you. And they’re right, but I still went there anyway, because it’s my job. What I find in going to areas where the Black community is most densely populated is that they’re getting ignored by everybody.Mara Gay: Why do you think more of them aren’t supporting you since you’re so focused on crime? And that’s something that disproportionately affects them.I haven’t gotten to everybody.Mara Gay: You haven’t asked every Black voter?Oh, I mean, generally, I’m asking every voter in the State of New York of every walk of life and every single background. I’m asking everyone to be supportive of my candidacy, but I’m talking about one on one. That’s why I was there for Harlem Week. I’ll be there for the African American Day.I met with community leaders multiple times in different community restaurants. I’ve been there for press conferences, whether it’s targeting Jose Alba nearby at his bodega. I remember having one of the primary debates that had took place on Juneteenth, and they asked a question somewhat similar to your question. It was a little bit different. I said, actually, I just came here from lunch in Harlem.I might spend four years going into Harlem over and over and over and over again. And I might increase my vote share by almost nothing. And I’ll still be proud that I did that, because it’s my job. At the end of the day, people can vote for whoever the heck they want. My message is this, though, to everybody, including right, left, whatever your background is: Don’t let anybody take your vote for granted.Kathleen Kingsbury: I think we should end there.Eleanor Randolph: Wow.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

    The Midterms Look Very Different if You’re Not a Democrat or a Republican

    Ross Douthat, a Times Opinion columnist, hosted an online conversation with Liel Leibovitz, an editor at large for Tablet magazine, and Stephanie Slade, a senior editor at Reason magazine, to discuss how they and other “politically homeless” Americans are thinking about the midterm elections.Ross Douthat: Thanks to you both for serving as representatives of the important part of America that feels legitimately torn between the political parties. Liel, in December of 2021 you wrote an essay about what you called “the Turn,” meaning the feeling of no longer being at home on the political left, of being alienated from the Democratic Party by everything from Covid-era school closures to doctrinaire progressivism.Where does “the Turn” carry you when it comes to electoral politics, facing the (arguably) binary choices of the midterm elections?Liel Leibovitz: Nowhere good, I’m afraid. I’m an immigrant, so I have no real tribal or longstanding loyalties. I came to this country, like so many other immigrants, because I care deeply about two things — freedom of religion and individual liberties. And both parties are messing up when it comes to these two fundamental pillars of American life, from cheering on law enforcement spying on Muslim Americans in the wake of 9/11 to cheering on social media networks for curbing free speech. “The Turn” leads me away from both Democrats and Republicans.Douthat: Stephanie, you’re a libertarian, part of a faction that’s always been somewhat alienated from both parties, despite (usually) having a somewhat stronger connection to the right. This is not, I think it’s fair to say, a particularly libertarian moment in either coalition. What kind of Election Day outcomes are you actually rooting for?Stephanie Slade: This is tough. As someone motivated by a desire for much less government than we currently have, I’m always going to be nervous about the prospect of a Congress that’s willing to rubber-stamp the whims of a president (or vice versa). So I’m an instinctive fan of divided power. But that preference is running smack up against the almost unimaginable abhorrence I feel toward some of the Republicans who would have to win in order for the G.O.P. to retake the Senate.Douthat: Liel, as someone whose relationship to the left and the Democrats has become much more complicated in recent years, what do you see when you look at the Republican alternative?Leibovitz: Sadly, the same thing I see when I look at the Democrats. I see a party too enmeshed in very bad ideas and too interested in power rather than principle. I see a party only too happy to cheer on big government to curtail individual liberties and to let tech oligopolies govern many corners of our lives. The only point of light is how many outliers both these parties seem to be producing these days, which tells me that the left-right dichotomy is truly turning meaningless.Douthat: But political parties are always more interested in power rather than principle, right? And a lot of people look at the current landscape and say, “Sure, there are problems in both parties, but the stakes are just too high not to choose a side.” Especially among liberals, there’s a strong current of frustration with cross-pressured voters. How do you respond to people who can’t understand why you aren’t fully on their side?Slade: Those seeking power certainly want people to feel like the stakes are too high not to go along with their demands. Yes, there are militant partisans on both sides who consider it traitorous of me not to be with them 100 percent. At the same time, there’s a distinction worth keeping in mind between where party activists are and where the average Republican or Democratic voter is. Most Americans are not so wedded to their red-blue identities.Leibovitz: The most corrosive and dispiriting thing is how zero-sum our political conversation has gotten. I look at the Democratic Party and see a lot of energy I love — particularly the old Bernie Sanders spirit, before it was consumed by the apparatus. I look at the Republican Party and see people like Ted Cruz, who are very good at kicking up against some of the party’s worst ideas. There’s hope here and energy, just not if you keep on seeing this game as red versus blue.Douthat: Let me pause there, Liel. What bad ideas do you think Cruz is kicking against?Leibovitz: He represents a kind of energy that doesn’t necessarily gravitate toward the orthodoxies of giving huge corporations the freedom to do as they please. He’s rooted in an understanding of America that balks at the notion that we now have a blob of government-corporate interests dictating every aspect of our lives and that everything — from our medical system to our entertainment — is uniform.Douthat: This is a good example of the gap between how political professionals see things and how individuals see things. There’s no place for the Bernie-Cruz sympathizer in normal political typologies! But you see in polls right now not just Georgians who might back Brian Kemp for governor in Georgia and Raphael Warnock for senator but also Arizonans who might vote for Mark Kelly and Kari Lake — a stranger combination.Stephanie, what do you think about this ticket-splitting impulse?Slade: Some of this isn’t new. Political scientists and pollsters have long observed that people don’t love the idea of any one side having too much power at once. In that, I can’t blame them.Leibovitz: I agree. But it’s still so interesting to me that some of these splits seem just so outlandish, like the number of people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and then in 2016 for Donald Trump. That’s telling us that something truly interesting, namely that these tired labels — Democrat, Republican — don’t really mean anything anymore.Slade: We insiders always want to believe that voters are operating from a sort of consistent philosophical blueprint. But we’re seeing a lot more frustration-based voting, backlash voting. This can be fine, in the sense that there’s plenty in our world to be frustrated about, but my fear is that it can tip over into a politics thoroughly motivated by hatreds. And that is scary.Douthat: Right. For instance, in the realm of pundits, there’s an assumption that Republican candidates should be assessed based on how all-in they are for election conspiracy theories and that swing voters should recoil from the conspiracists. That seems to be happening in Pennsylvania, where the more conspiratorial Republican, Doug Mastriano, seems to be doing worse in his governor’s race than Dr. Oz is in the Senate campaign. But in Arizona, Lake is the more conspiratorial candidate, and she appears to be a stronger candidate than Blake Masters is in the Senate race.Which suggests that swing voters are often using a different compass than the political class.Leibovitz: Let me inject a very big dose of — dare I say it? — hope here. Yes, there’s a lot of hate and a lot of fear going on. But if you look at these volatile patterns you’re describing, you’re seeing something else, which is a yearning for a real vision. Voters are gravitating toward candidates who are telling them coherent stories that make sense. To the political classes, these stories sometimes sound conspiratorial or crazy or way removed from the Beltway reality. But to normal Americans, they resonate.Douthat: Or, Stephanie, are they just swinging back and forth based on the price of gas, and all larger narratives are pundit impositions on more basic pocketbook impulses?Slade: Yeah, I’m a little more split on this. Economic fundamentals matter a lot, as do structural factors (like that the president’s party usually does poorly in midterms, irrespective of everything else).Douthat: But then do you, as an unusually well-informed, cross-pressured American, feel electing Republicans in the House or Senate will help with the economic situation, with inflation?Slade: It’s a debate among libertarians whether divided government is actually a good thing. Or is the one thing the two parties can agree on that they should spend ever more money? I don’t have a ton of hope that a Republican-controlled House or Senate will do much good. On the other hand, the sheer economic insanity of the Biden years — amounting to approving more than $4 trillion of new borrowing, to say nothing of the unconstitutional eviction moratorium and student loan forgiveness — is mind-boggling to me, so almost anything that could put the brakes on some of this stuff seems worth trying.Douthat: Spoken like a swing voter. Liel, you aren’t a libertarian, but your particular profile — Jewish immigrant writer put off by progressive extremism — does resemble an earlier cross-pressured group, the original 1970s neoconservatives. Over time, a lot of neoconservatives ended up comfortably on the right (at least until recently) because they felt welcomed by the optimism of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.Do you think that the toxic side of the G.O.P. is a permanent obstacle to completing a similar move rightward for people alienated by progressivism?Leibovitz: Not to get too biblical, but I view Trump less as a person and more as a plague, a reminder from above to mend our ways, or else. And many voters mortified by the sharp left turn of the Democratic Party are feeling, like me, politically homeless right now.But politically homeless is not politically hopeless. The way out for us isn’t by focusing on which of these two broken homes is better but on which ideas we still hold dear. And here I agree with Stephanie. Stopping the economic insanity — from rampant spending to stopping oil production and driving up gas prices to giving giant corporations a free pass — is key. So is curbing the notion that it’s OK to believe that the government can decide that some categories, like race or gender or sexual orientation, make a person a member of a protected class and that it’s OK for the government to adjudicate which of these classes is more worthy of protection.Douthat: Let’s end by getting specific. Irrespective of party, is there a candidate on the ballot this fall who you are especially eager to see win and one that you are especially eager to see lose?Leibovitz: I’m a New Yorker, so anyone who helped turn this state — and my beloved hometown — into the teetering mess it is right now deserves to go. Lee Zeldin seems like the sort of out-of-left-field candidate who can be transformative, especially considering the tremendous damage done by the progressives in the state.Douthat: OK, you’ve given me a Republican candidate you want to see win, is there one you’d like to see fail?Leibovitz: I know Pennsylvania is a very important battleground state, and the Democrats have put forth a person who appears ill equipped for this responsibility, but it’s very, very hard to take a Dr. Oz candidacy seriously.Slade: I spend a lot of my time following the rising illiberal conservative movement, variously known as national conservatives, postliberals, the New Right and so on. What distinguishes them is their desire not just to acquire government power but to wield it to destroy their enemies. That goes against everything I believe and everything I believe America stands for. The person running for office right now who seems most representative of that view is J.D. Vance, who once told a reporter that “our people hate the right people.” I would like to see that sentiment lose soundly in November, wherever it’s on the ballot. (Not that I’m saying I think it actually will lose in Ohio.)Douthat: No predictions here, just preferences. Is there someone you really want to win?Slade: Like a good libertarian, can I say I wish they could all lose?Douthat: Not really, because my last question bestows on both of you a very unlibertarian power. You are each the only swing voter in America, and you get to choose the world of 2023: a Democratic-controlled Congress, a Republican-controlled Congress or the wild card, Republicans taking one house but not the other. How do you use this power?Leibovitz: Mets fan here, so wild card is an apt metaphor: Take the split, watch them both lose in comical and heartbreaking ways and pray for a better team next election.Slade: If forced to decide, I’d split the baby, then split the baby again: Republicans take the House, Democrats hold the Senate.Douthat: A Solomonic conclusion, indeed. Thanks so much to you both.Ross Douthat is a Times columnist. Liel Leibovitz is an editor at large for Tablet magazine and a host of its weekly culture podcast, “Unorthodox,” and daily Talmud podcast, “Take One.” Stephanie Slade (@sladesr) is a senior editor at Reason magazine.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

    Siena Poll Shows Zeldin Gaining on Hochul in NY Governor’s Race

    Representative Lee Zeldin has cut into Gov. Kathy Hochul’s lead in the race for governor of New York, narrowing the margin to 11 percentage points, down from 17 points last month, according to a Siena College poll released on Tuesday.The survey suggested that Ms. Hochul, a Democrat, still possesses a healthy lead over Mr. Zeldin, a Republican, in a liberal-leaning state where no Republican has won a statewide race since 2002.But with Election Day just three weeks away, the diminished gap between the two suggested that New York voters were growing more concerned about the state’s direction — much as recent polling nationwide has indicated that the flailing economy and stubborn inflation remain top-of-mind concerns, as Republicans have expanded their edge over Democrats ahead of November’s midterm elections.While 61 percent of Democrats said that New York was on the right track, 87 percent of Republicans and a majority of independent voters said the state was headed in the wrong direction, according to the poll.In particular, Ms. Hochul lost support among white voters, who appear to be evenly divided between the candidates after favoring Ms. Hochul by 10 percentage points in September, the poll found.The results from the Siena poll tracked closely with a separate survey from Marist College last week that showed Ms. Hochul leading Mr. Zeldin by 10 percentage points among registered voters and eight percentage points among likely voters. Ms. Hochul appears to have a roughly 12-point lead, according to an average of nearly a dozen polls compiled by FiveThirtyEight, an opinion poll analysis website that takes into account a poll’s quality and partisan lean.Ms. Hochul and Mr. Zeldin have both sharpened their attacks in the final stretch, casting each other as members of their party’s most extreme wings and doubling down on the overarching themes that have defined the race. Ms. Hochul has continued to portray Mr. Zeldin as a threat to the state’s strict abortion protections, while Mr. Zeldin has blamed the governor’s policies for contributing to crime and rising costs in New York.The contest received a jolt over the weekend when former President Donald J. Trump formally endorsed Mr. Zeldin, who was one of Mr. Trump’s earliest supporters in Congress. Mr. Trump, who previously raised money for Mr. Zeldin, praised the candidate as “great and brilliant” in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social.Democrats in New York, where Mr. Trump remains deeply unpopular, quickly moved to capitalize on the endorsement, releasing an ad trumpeting Mr. Zeldin’s close ties to the former president, including his vote against certifying the 2020 election.But the congressman, who is vying to make inroads among moderate voters and disaffected Democrats, played down Mr. Trump’s formal backing, saying on Monday that it “shouldn’t have been news.”The Siena poll, which surveyed over 700 likely voters last week and has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points, showed Ms. Hochul and Mr. Zeldin with a tight hold over voters from their respective parties. Mr. Zeldin, however, increased his lead among independent voters by six percentage points (49 percent to 40 percent over Ms. Hochul).The governor continues to have a commanding lead in New York City, where she is beating Mr. Zeldin 70 percent to 23 percent, and among women as well as Black and Latino voters, according to the poll.Mr. Zeldin, for his part, gained the lead in the city’s suburbs, where he is now beating Ms. Hochul 49 percent to 45 percent, after trailing her by one percentage point last month. He also increased his margin in upstate New York to four percentage points, up from one percentage point in the last poll. He has improved his name recognition, even if most voters continue to have an unfavorable view of him.Despite the modest gains, Mr. Zeldin would have to make much larger inroads across the map to cobble together a winning coalition. The state’s electoral landscape is stacked against him: Democratic voters outnumber Republicans two to one in New York.And though Mr. Zeldin is receiving significant support from Republican-backed super PACs pumping money into the race, he appears unlikely to surpass Ms. Hochul’s sizable fund-raising advantage.The governor has maintained an aggressive fund-raising schedule to help bankroll the multimillion-dollar barrage of television ads she has deployed to attack Mr. Zeldin.But Ms. Hochul, until very recently, has mostly avoided overtly political events such as rallies and other retail politics in which she personally engages with voters. Mr. Zeldin, in contrast, has deployed an ambitious ground game, touring the state in a truck festooned with his name and a “Save our State” slogan. More

  • in

    Hochul Hits the Road, Even if It Veers From the Campaign Trail

    Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York is forgoing retail politics and instead relying on an aggressive ad strategy and staged events that highlight state investments.Earlier this year, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York convened over a dozen state lawmakers from Long Island at the governor’s mansion in Albany. Over breakfast, she sought to reassure them that she would prioritize their needs in the forthcoming state budget.Two weeks later, she fulfilled her promise. Just before the budget vote, her office slipped in a $350 million fund that could be spent with few restrictions on projects in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, a late-minute addition to the budget that caught most by surprise.Now, with about a month until Election Day, Ms. Hochul is reaping the political benefits from her shrewd maneuvering of state resources: Two weeks ago, she visited Long Island to announce the fund’s first grant — $10 million for a medical research center — drawing local fanfare and favorable news coverage in a key battleground region and the home turf of her Republican opponent, Representative Lee Zeldin.As she seeks her first full term as governor, Ms. Hochul, a Democrat from Buffalo, has diligently wielded the governor’s office to her political advantage, pulling the levers of government to woo voters and casting herself as the steady, experienced hand.The governor has, until very recently, mostly avoided overtly political events such as rallies and other retail politics in which she personally engages with voters. But behind the scenes, she has kept busy fund-raising large sums of money to bankroll the multimillion-dollar barrage of television ads she has deployed to attack Mr. Zeldin, and cushion her lead in most public polls.She held a 10 percentage point lead over Mr. Zeldin in a Marist College poll released on Thursday, and an even larger lead in other recent major polls.While Mr. Zeldin has been actively campaigning and battling for media attention on a near-daily basis, Ms. Hochul has rarely issued official campaign schedules, and has agreed to debate Mr. Zeldin only once, much to his chagrin. Instead, over the past few weeks, she has mostly crisscrossed the state in her capacity as governor, using taxpayer-funded transport to make over 50 appearances in just as many days, the majority of them in voter-rich New York City.Representative Lee Zeldin, on a recent visit to a Hasidic neighborhood in Brooklyn, is pushing Ms. Hochul to agree to multiple debates.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesShe has kept a busy itinerary, shuffling from ceremonies and receptions — a monument unveiling in Buffalo, a fashion week event on Park Avenue, a Labor Day breakfast with union leaders — to carefully staged events to sign legislation and make government pronouncements related to public safety, climate change and economic development.On a Tuesday morning last month, Ms. Hochul spoke at back-to-back conferences in Manhattan before visiting a subway maintenance facility in Queens to announce putting security cameras inside subway cars. The following week, she drove an electric car to publicize an announcement in White Plains about state efforts to make vehicles in New York emission-free; later that evening, she delivered remarks at Carnegie Hall’s opening night gala.She has greeted President Biden in New York twice in two weeks.“What people want to see is a governor governing and she’s providing that,” Doug Forand, the founder of Red Horse Strategies, a consulting firm, who is working for a political action committee that is supporting Ms. Hochul. “The reality is that, as an incumbent, you’re going to be judged much more based on how you perform in your office than you are on how many debates you do or how many parades you walk in.”The immense advantages of the governor’s office as a campaign asset came into sharp focus last week. Joined by Senator Chuck Schumer in Syracuse, Ms. Hochul announced that a computer chip company, Micron, had decided to open a massive plant in the area, and had pledged to invest more than $100 billion over two decades. Ms. Hochul helped facilitate the deal by giving the company a $6 billion state subsidy — one of the largest incentives in state history.Shortly after, the Hochul campaign began to capitalize on the deal, promoting the investment as a consequential job-generator and “one of the largest economic development projects in U.S. history,” casting it as an example of Ms. Hochul’s business-friendly ethos.The governor strongly rejected the notion that voter-friendly economic projects, like the $10 million grant for the Long Island medical research center, was the result of political calculations in an election year.“You’ve seen events with me on Long Island since my first couple of weeks on the job,” said Ms. Hochul. “This is a continuation of our investment all throughout New York State.”Indeed, Ms. Hochul is largely running on her record during her 13 months in office, following her unexpected replacement of former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. Rather than proposing a grand policy vision for the next four years, she touts what she has accomplished. If anything, she has cast herself as a fierce defender of the status quo: She has hinged much of her campaign on protecting New York’s already-strict abortion rights and gun laws, while portraying Mr. Zeldin as a threat to both.A fashion week event in Manhattan was among the 50 or so events that Ms. Hochul attended in the last 50 days.Dolly Faibyshev for The New York TimesBy relying on the governor’s office and the airwaves — she has spent $8.7 million on ad buys so far versus Mr. Zeldin’s $2 million, according to AdImpact — her campaign has, for the most part, adopted a so-called Rose Garden strategy, using the power of incumbency and the prestige of the governor’s office to attract free publicity and stay in the public eye.But her spotty presence on the campaign trail has rekindled concerns among some that her campaign may not be running an aggressive enough ground game to draw in voters in overlooked communities and deepen a broad coalition that could help her govern a full term.Camille Rivera, a political consultant at New Deal Strategies, said that while she expected Ms. Hochul to cruise to victory after uniting Democrats around animating issues, including reproductive rights, she said there had been “a lackluster engagement of Latino voters, in particular.”“The governor is missing an opportunity to take this and really campaign, campaign to solidify her base,” she said. “I’ve seen her in Queens and in the Bronx with elected officials, but I don’t think I’ve seen her doing that kind of people-to-people style engagement that can excite voters for the future if she wants to run again.”In response to questions from The Times, the Hochul campaign sent a list of over a dozen appearances the governor had made in recent weeks that it said were examples of campaigning, even though the events were not listed on her campaign schedule, including visits to small businesses in Ithaca and Bayside, Queens.Indeed, Ms. Hochul has been spotted nurturing relationships with elected officials in casual gatherings that her campaign does not necessarily announce to the media. In mid-August, for example, she visited a Latin American restaurant in Williamsburg to try a drink named in her honor alongside Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president, and State Senator Julia Salazar.Over the past two weekends, Ms. Hochul’s campaign issued an unusually active schedule, a sign that she may begin to ramp up campaign-related events as Election Day nears and voters pay closer attention to the race.In a flurry of photo opportunities that spanned roughly four hours, she joined the Rev. Al Sharpton for his birthday celebration in Harlem on Oct. 1 before sitting with Dan Goldman, a Democrat running for Congress, at a Puerto Rican restaurant in the Lower East Side. By noon, she had traveled to Long Island to speak briefly to the campaign volunteers for two Democrats engaged in competitive House races there.Last Saturday, she joined Letitia James, the state attorney general, in Brooklyn to give remarks at two festivals, in Bedford-Stuyvesant and Fort Greene, while the party’s field offices launched canvassing operations in 39 locations across the state, sending volunteers to knock on doors and register voters, according to the Hochul campaign.Even as Ms. Hochul’s campaign stirs to life, the governor’s Rose Garden strategy has a track record of success. Mr. Cuomo, a three-term Democrat, employed a similar approach in his re-election campaigns, drawing ire from his political critics and rivals even though he went on to win by large margins. “My campaign is basically my performance in office,” he said in 2014.Even though Ms. Hochul vowed to usher in a new era of open government in Albany, where bills are typically hashed out behind closed doors, some of the achievements she has pitched to voters in recent weeks were a result of the opaque, far-from-public-view policymaking she had vowed to eradicate.The $6 billion state subsidy the governor awarded to Micron was made possible by a bill she muscled through the State Legislature in the last days of this year’s legislative session. With little chance for lawmakers to review it, the bill, which designated $10 billion in tax breaks for microchip makers, received virtually zero public discussion.The $350 million fund that Ms. Hochul carved out for Long Island in the state budget followed a similar pattern.At the time, Ms. Hochul had just unveiled a secret deal she had negotiated with the Buffalo Bills to spend $850 million in taxpayer money to build a new stadium for the football team. Politicians from both parties denounced the agreement as a boondoggle, creating a political headache for Ms. Hochul, who was left to find ways to placate lawmakers in other parts of the state.Indeed, a few days before the $350 million fund for Long Island-based projects became public knowledge, Newsday published a scathing editorial that excoriated Ms. Hochul and the region’s lawmakers for not having scored a “big budgetary win” for Long Island in the looming budget deal.Ms. Hochul’s critics have denounced the $350 million pot of money, which can be spent with great flexibility at the discretion of the executive branch, as a “slush fund.” But it was also part of nearly $1.6 billion in similar funding for capital projects added late into the budget negotiations, which Patrick Orecki, the director of state studies at the Citizens Budget Commission, described as a classic example of pork spending.“This funding really came at the 11th hour,” he said. “So it seems like they’re probably the result of political negotiations, rather than rigorous capital planning and identifying what the most urgent priorities of the state’s infrastructure are.” More

  • in

    Hochul Leads Zeldin by 10 Points in Marist Poll, as G.O.P. Sees Hope

    Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, enjoys a healthy lead in New York, but Republican leaders are showing signs of cautious optimism that the race might be competitive.Gov. Kathy Hochul leads Representative Lee Zeldin by 10 percentage points in a Marist College poll of registered voters released on Thursday, a potential margin of victory that would be the narrowest in a New York governor’s race in nearly three decades.The poll suggested that Ms. Hochul, a Democrat from Buffalo, would defeat Mr. Zeldin, a Republican from Long Island, by 51 percent to 41 percent, a poll result that included those who were undecided but were pressed to pick the candidate they were leaning toward.The governor’s lead over Mr. Zeldin narrowed to eight percentage points among voters who said that they would “definitely vote” in the Nov. 8 election, one of the marquee races for governor in the country.The survey marked the first time that Marist has polled the governor’s race in New York this year, and it suggested that Ms. Hochul’s lead may be narrower than some other major public polls have indicated in recent months.A poll released by Siena College in late September, for instance, found that the governor was ahead by a commanding 17 percentage points, up from 14 percentage points in a Siena survey from August. An Emerson College poll suggested that Ms. Hochul was up by 15 points in early September.The last time a candidate in a contest for governor of New York won by fewer than 10 percentage points was in 1994, when George Pataki, a Republican, upset the three-term Democratic incumbent, Mario M. Cuomo, by roughly three percentage points. (In 2002, Mr. Pataki won re-election with 49.4 percent of the vote, while two candidates, Carl McCall and Tom Golisano, split the rest of the vote.)There are other signals that national Republicans have grown more cautiously optimistic about the trajectory of the race. After initially taking a pass on spending for Mr. Zeldin, the Republican Governors Association transferred $450,000 last week to a pro-Zeldin super PAC running ads attacking Ms. Hochul. Still, the investment is a fraction of what the group is spending in swing states like Arizona and Michigan.Even so, with less than a month until Election Day, the Marist poll was the latest indication that, despite the favorable political climate for Republicans this cycle, Ms. Hochul remains strongly positioned to emerge victorious as she seeks her first full term.She has built a campaign juggernaut that has continued to significantly outpace Mr. Zeldin in spending and fund-raising, while publicizing her accomplishments during her one year in office since unexpectedly succeeding former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo after his resignation.While Mr. Zeldin has sought to appeal to New Yorkers’ concerns over inflation and public safety, Ms. Hochul has generated a storm of television and digital ads attacking Mr. Zeldin’s opposition to abortion rights, as well as his support of former President Donald J. Trump.For Mr. Zeldin to pull off a win in a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic, he would have to make significant inroads in voter-rich New York City, the state’s liberal stronghold, while winning by considerable margins in the suburbs and in upstate.But recent polls have suggested that those prospects may be far from reach.The Zeldin campaign has said he would need to secure at least 30 percent of the vote in New York City to remain competitive, but the Marist poll found him trailing Ms. Hochul 23 percent to 65 percent in the city. His small lead in the suburbs (three percentage points) and upstate (six percentage points) would not be enough to defeat Ms. Hochul statewide if the election were held today, the poll suggested.The Marist poll, however, indicated there might be more enthusiasm among Republicans, suggesting that Republicans were more likely to head to the polls. It suggested that a higher percentage of voters who said they supported Mr. Zeldin, 74 percent, said they “strongly supported” their candidate of choice, compared with 62 percent of those who said they would vote for Ms. Hochul.“Although Democratic candidates for governor and U.S. Senate lead in very blue New York, the race for governor still bears watching,” Lee M. Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, said in a statement. “Republicans say they are more likely to vote, enthusiasm for Zeldin among his supporters exceeds Hochul’s and any shift to crime in the closing weeks is likely to benefit Zeldin.”The poll was conducted a few days before two teenagers were shot in a drive-by shooting outside Mr. Zeldin’s home on Long Island last weekend, an incident that the congressman has used to play up his campaign message around public safety.Out of the 1,117 registered voters that the Marist poll surveyed over a four-day span last week via phone, text and online, 900, or about 70 percent, said that they definitely planned to vote in November. The poll had a margin of error of four percentage points.Nicholas Fandos More

  • in

    For Zeldin, a Shooting Hits Close to Home and to His Campaign Theme

    The shooting of two teenagers directly outside his Long Island home has given Mr. Zeldin an opportunity to push his tough-on-crime message within a personal frame.After two teenage boys were shot outside his home on Long Island last weekend, Representative Lee Zeldin wasted little time to amplify the tough-on-crime message he has relentlessly pressed in his bid for governor of New York.He quickly assembled a news conference in front of his moonlit house on Sunday night, followed up the next day with a Fox News interview, and used an appearance at the Columbus Day Parade to imbue his political messaging with a new personal, if frightening, outlook.“It doesn’t hit any closer to home than this,” Mr. Zeldin, a Republican, said while marching at the parade in Manhattan on Monday, describing the incident as “traumatic” for his twin 16-year-old daughters, who were doing their homework in the kitchen when the shooting happened. “This could be anyone across this entire state.”“Last night the girls wanted to sleep with us,” Mr. Zeldin also said during the parade. “I didn’t think that the next time I’d be standing in front of a crime scene, it would be crime scene tape in front of my own house.”The shooting unfolded on Sunday afternoon when the police said multiple gunshots were fired from a dark-colored vehicle at three teenage boys walking near Mr. Zeldin’s home in Suffolk County on Long Island. Two 17-year-old boys were forced to take cover by Mr. Zeldin’s porch, suffering injuries that were not life threatening, while a 15-year-old boy fled the shots unharmed.That the shooting unfolded near the home of a conservative congressman who has anchored his campaign for governor on the state of crime in New York, attracting outsize media attention, appears to have been pure happenstance.The police had not made any arrests as of Tuesday, but they were investigating whether the incident was connected to gang violence, according to a law enforcement official who asked to remain anonymous to discuss an ongoing investigation.But with less than four weeks until Election Day, the shooting offered Mr. Zeldin an opportunity to elevate the issue of public safety in the governor’s race, as the congressman seeks a breakout in his efforts to unseat Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who has so far enjoyed a comfortable lead in most public polls.Mr. Zeldin faces a steep climb to overcome Ms. Hochul’s significant fund-raising edge in a state where Democrats overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans. He has been quick to talk about the impact of the shooting in starkly personal terms, appealing to New Yorkers who have also been affected by gun violence. Mr. Zeldin was at a campaign event in the Bronx with his wife during the shooting.Mr. Zeldin, a staunch Trump supporter who has represented Suffolk County in Congress since 2015, has said he would make law and order his top priority if elected. He has consistently sought to blame the rise in violence on criminal justice policies enacted by progressive lawmakers as well as on left-leaning prosecutors, such as Alvin Bragg, the district attorney in Manhattan. He has promised to fire Mr. Bragg “on Day 1.”At the same time, he has opposed Democratic-led efforts to tighten gun control measures, cheering the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down New York’s concealed carry law as “a historic, proper, and necessary victory.”Ms. Hochul, who is seeking her first full term, has trumpeted her efforts to tighten the state’s bail laws and has emphasized initiatives to crack down on illegal gun trafficking, as well as a law she signed raising the age for the purchase of semiautomatic rifles, after a massacre at a Buffalo supermarket earlier this year.“We’re not running away from those issues,” Ms. Hochul said on Monday. “We’re leaning hard into them because we have a real record of accomplishment.”The shooting outside Mr. Zeldin’s home is the second time his safety has been threatened this election cycle.Three months ago, a man tried to physically attack Mr. Zeldin with a sharp key chain during a campaign event near Rochester. The attacker, a veteran of the Iraq War who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and alcoholism, was quickly subdued and initially released without bail before being arrested on federal assault charges.Mr. Zeldin, who was not injured, used the confrontation to attack Democrats for the reforms they enacted to the state’s bail laws two years ago, even if the episode did little to shake up the state of the race.“It’s an extraordinary coincidence of events that gives Zeldin’s crime message added credibility, urgency, and national attention,” said William F. B. O’Reilly, a Republican political consultant who is not working on the Zeldin campaign. “This will almost certainly help him in the final weeks of the campaign.”Mr. Zeldin could certainly use a boost, having lagged behind Ms. Hochul in nearly every public poll commissioned this cycle. He has also found himself chasing her haul of campaign contributions — a tribute to a voracious fund-raising apparatus that raised $11.1 million from July to October of this year. The cash has allowed her to blanket airwaves and smartphones with campaign ads attacking Mr. Zeldin’s support of Mr. Trump and his opposition to abortion rights.Mr. Zeldins financial outlook is not exactly bleak, however. He brought in $6.4 million during the same period, thanks in part to fund-raisers with former president Donald J. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. He has also seen support from conservative super PACs which have spent nearly $4 million in the past weeks on ads calling Ms. Hochul soft on crime and criticizing her handling of the economy.On Tuesday, a police car was still stationed outside Mr. Zeldin’s home in Shirley, a working-class hamlet on the South Shore of Long Island, where residents on the typically sleepy street were still rattled by the burst of violence.Dan Haug was in his home when he heard the shots and ran to the window, spotting one of the boys lying in Mr. Zeldin’s bushes, screaming and bleeding from the gunshot wounds.“You know, there’s little isolated incidents in this neighborhood with like, fireworks and like dogs getting loose,” said Mr. Haug, who has lived in the neighborhood for seven years. “But nothing like that.”Mary Smith, the mother of the teenager who escaped unharmed, blamed the shooting on the proliferation of guns among young people, while stressing that she did not believe her son was in a gang, saying: “He’s just a normal kid.”While expressing sympathy for the Zeldin family ordeal, Ms. Smith lamented that she had heard nothing from the congressman himself, despite his many public comments.“I’m around the corner from you,” Ms. Smith said in an interview. “They took the story away from the victims and made it about running for government.”Chelsia Rose Marcius More

  • in

    2 Shot Outside Home of Lee Zeldin, Candidate for New York Governor

    The conditions of the two people and the circumstances of what happened were unclear but officials said there was no connection between the shooting and the residents of the home.Two people were wounded in a shooting on Sunday outside the home of Representative Lee Zeldin, the Republican candidate for governor of New York, the candidate said on Twitter.The Suffolk County Police Department said that detectives were investigating the shooting, outside a home in Shirley on Long Island at 2:20 p.m. The conditions of the two people were not immediately clear.In a statement, Mr. Zeldin said that the two men who were shot were under his front porch and that he did not know them. The authorities also said there was no connection between the injured and the residents of the home.Mr. Zeldin said that he and his wife, Diana, were not home at the time of the shooting and had just left the Bronx Columbus Day Parade in the Morris Park neighborhood. He said his 16-year-old daughters, Mikayla and Arianna, were in the house doing homework at the kitchen table when they heard gunshots and screaming.“They ran upstairs, locked themselves in the bathroom and immediately called 911,” he said. “They acted very swiftly and smartly every step of the way and Diana and I are extremely proud of them.”Mr. Zeldin, a conservative congressman, has made public safety the centerpiece of his campaign, traveling the state to highlight violent crimes while promising to tighten the state’s bail laws and crack down on crime, if elected.He is considered an underdog against Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, who had a comfortable lead in recent polls. Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than two to one in New York, and the governor’s campaign has sought to highlight Mr. Zeldin’s opposition to abortion rights and his support for former President Donald J. Trump.The shooting is the second time that violence has intersected with Mr. Zeldin’s campaign in recent months. In July, a man from Western New York was charged with assaulting a member of Congress after he physically confronted Mr. Zeldin onstage during a political event.The man, who was identified as an Army veteran, was pointing a sharp keychain toward the congressman. He later said he had been drinking and did not know who Mr. Zeldin was. Mr. Zeldin placed the attack in the context of his anti-crime message.“I’m as resolute as ever to do my part to make New York safe again,” he said at the time.The campaign increased security around Mr. Zeldin after the July incident. He hit the same note on Sunday, saying that his daughters were shaken by the shooting but otherwise unhurt.“Like so many New Yorkers, crime has literally made its way to our front door,” he said.Governor Hochul said on Twitter that she had been briefed on the shooting and was “relieved to hear the Zeldin family is safe and grateful for law enforcement’s quick response.”Grace Ashford More

  • in

    Hochul Outpaces Zeldin in Cash Race, but Super PACs Help His Cause

    Gov. Kathy Hochul has used her fund-raising edge to spend more than $1.5 million a week since Labor Day on an aggressive television ad campaign.Since she took office last year, Gov. Kathy Hochul’s voracious fund-raising apparatus has been a source of curiosity and concern among various factions of New York’s political and business elite.But with just a month left in one of the nation’s marquee governor’s races, it has given Ms. Hochul an increasingly clear payoff: a financial advantage over her Republican opponent, Representative Lee Zeldin, as she seeks to become the first woman to be elected governor of New York.Ms. Hochul raised $11.1 million, or about $133,000 a day on average, from mid-July to early October, according to campaign filings made public late Friday that showed numerous high-dollar events in the Hamptons and Manhattan. She will enter the homestretch of the race with nearly $10.9 million in cash at her disposal — two and a half times as much money as Mr. Zeldin.As independent polls show Ms. Hochul, a Buffalo Democrat, with a fluctuating lead, she has poured most of the cash into an unrelenting ad campaign to try to highlight Mr. Zeldin’s opposition to abortion rights and support for former President Donald J. Trump. It is not cheap: Records show Ms. Hochul has spent more than $1.5 million a week since Labor Day to blanket New Yorkers’ televisions and smartphones.Mr. Zeldin’s fund-raising total represents a fraction of the kinds of campaign hauls being put together by other Republicans running for governor in big states this fall as the party tries to make major gains nationwide.But unlike other recent Republican nominees in New York, Mr. Zeldin has seemed to put together enough money to remain competitive in the race’s final weeks. His campaign reported raising $6.4 million during the three-month period, including large hauls at events featuring Mr. Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. Mr. Zeldin has roughly $4.5 million in cash, a figure that surprised some Democrats.“Lee Zeldin is raising enough money to run a more competitive race than the last few Republican gubernatorial nominees,” said Evan Stavisky, a leading New York Democratic strategist. “However, and this is a big however, money isn’t the only reason Republicans haven’t won a statewide election in 20 years, and Zeldin is still going to be vastly outspent by Kathy Hochul.”There are more than twice as many registered Democrats than Republicans in the state — a margin that underscores Mr. Zeldin’s challenge.Notably, a pair of Republican super PACs, largely funded by a single conservative billionaire cosmetics heir, have stepped in to help narrow the financial gap: The two groups, Safe Together NY and Save our State NY, have collectively spent close to $4 million in recent weeks on ads echoing Mr. Zeldin’s attacks on Ms. Hochul, according to AdImpact, an ad tracking firm. The ads accuse the governor of being soft on crime and weak on the economy.Unlike campaign committees, the groups can accept unlimited donations, allowing wealthy individuals to exercise huge amounts of influence on the race. In the case of the governor’s race, Ronald S. Lauder, the cosmetics heir, has already committed close to $4.5 million to the two PACs, a number that is expected to grow in the coming weeks.Ms. Hochul, who took office last year after the resignation of Andrew M. Cuomo, does not have a similar super PAC aiding her campaign. But she has raised millions of dollars from wealthy donors with business interests before the state, an arrangement that, while common among her predecessors, has nonetheless drawn scrutiny from good governance watchdogs who worry that it is creating conflicts of interest.Though Ms. Hochul’s campaign touted that 60 percent of its contributions were for less than $200, the vast majority of her funds came in far larger increments, including more than 100 contributions of $25,000 or more, the filings showed.More than $2 million came directly from corporations, unions and political action committees, including Eli Lilly, Lyft, Charter Communications and Pfizer. The personal injury law firm Gair, Gair, Conason and the medical malpractice firm Kramer, Dillof, Livingston & Moore each funneled $100,000 to the campaign.Ms. Hochul also received large contributions from members of prominent New York families who have supported Mr. Zeldin. Ronald Lauder’s nephew, William P. Lauder, for example, gave Ms. Hochul $40,000. Haim Chera, a real estate executive whose family hosted the Zeldin fund-raiser attended by Mr. Trump, gave her $47,100. Mr. Chera is an executive at Vornado Realty Trust, a colossal firm that stands to benefit from Ms. Hochul’s plan to redevelop the area around Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan.Mr. Zeldin’s campaign took in about a third as many large checks, but it is benefiting from special interests, too. Two PACs associated with the Rent Stabilization Association, a pro-landlord trade group, gave a combined $89,000. Arnold Gumowitz, a real estate developer who has given to Ms. Hochul but is fighting the Penn Station project, contributed $47,100. Altogether, close to $500,000 came in from corporations, PACs and other special interests groups.Despite lending his presence to a fund-raiser, Mr. Trump has not cut a check to Mr. Zeldin, a longtime ally, nor has any group the former president controls.Other Republicans seeking to challenge statewide Democratic officeholders in New York are more clearly struggling to assemble the resources they need to compete.While Letitia James, the Democratic attorney general, reported $2.75 million in cash on hand, her opponent, Michael Henry, had just $146,000. Thomas P. DiNapoli, the Democratic comptroller, reported having $1,998,366 on hand, roughly 630 times as much as the $3,173.14 in the bank account of his opponent, Paul Rodriguez.Despite the millions being spent, the race for governor of New York is actually shaping up to be relatively cheap compared to other, more competitive contests in big states like Texas, Georgia and Wisconsin, which could cost well over $100 million each. In Georgia, the candidates for governor announced raising a total of nearly $65 million during the last three months. More