Trump's Reaction To Elections; Can Mamdani Deliver Promises? Legal Analysis | NTD Newsroom (Oct. 5)

After winning the New York City mayoral race, Zoram Amdani said he will announce members of his new administration soon. Here's more from his press conference today in Queens. >> Last night, we made history, and I'm so proud to be standing here today as the mayor elect of the greatest city in the world. Over two million New Yorkers cast their ballots. Whether they were the more than million who supported this campaign or the others who supported someone else or whether they felt too disappointed by the political process to participate at all. I will work every day to honor the trust that I now hold. Mani said over the coming days he will announce roles including deputy mayors and commissioners. They will carry out the critical work of city agencies and oversee entire areas of government. Dani also announced five women who will serve on his transition team. They include his campaign adviser who will be the executive director. The transition team members have worked under the previous three mayors. Mandani promised to build an administration that is capable, compassionate, driven by integrity, and willing to work hard. He said he is willing to work with Mayor Eric Adams to ensure a smooth transition. A number of Jewish organizations are reacting to the election of Zoram Amdani as the next mayor of New York City. The UJA Federation of New York issued a statement expressing its concerns. The federation said, quote, "We recognize that voters are animated by a range of issues, but we cannot ignore that the mayor elect holds core beliefs fundamentally at odds with our community's deepest convictions and most cherished values." The coalition said it will continue to work to ensure the city's Jewish community and all communities feel safe and respected. The organization added, quote, "Our agenda remains clear. We will hold all elected officials, including Mayor Elect Mani, fully accountable for ensuring that New York remains a place where Jewish life and support for Israel are protected and can thrive." Voters in Minneapolis have reelected the mayor for a third time. The AP is calling the race in favor for Jacob Fry. He beat out a large pool of candidates that included state senator Omar Fate. Minneapolis uses ranked choice voting to pick its mayor. And how it works is if a candidate does not clear the threshold in the first round, the ones with the lowest votes are dropped for the next round. The process is then repeated. Fry won in the final round. This will be his third term. >> There are real consequences to controlled media and entity's founders know them firsthand. Our freedom of thought is the price. This is the lesson that guides us in everything we do. >> So, there's the tear gas there. >> We know the value of a free society >> and we take seriously the responsibility to preserve it. We are NTD. Next, an analysis of Zoram Mdani's mayoral win and why New York has opted for a Democratic socialist mayor. Joining us to discuss this is Carrie Smith, the host of the YouTube show Dpprogrammed with Carrie Smith. Uh, so Carrie, thank you very much for joining us today. How are you? >> I'm good. Thanks for having me. Okay. So, yeah, I mean, let's just start here. Uh, your thoughts on why is Zoram Donnie uh won the mayoral race in New York? >> A couple of reasons. First of all, it is New York City. So, we're talking about a very leftist uh city to begin with. Um the the second reason is because people are struggling. Um his number one message in the campaign was affordability. And um that's the thing young people gen you know generation Z and millennials are are most concerned about I think and so when you become very desperate sometimes you tend to move towards radicalism you'll take any kind of you know hope was a big part of his platform right >> do you think I mean this choice for Mdani right a democratic socialist um do you think it is tied to the rise in support of socialism that we've seen seen in the US uh especially among younger generations. >> Yes. Because unfortunately in part because of our failed public school system, a lot of people in America don't know enough about the history of socialism. So we don't have direct experience with it. Um and and I think for young people, I mean the polls you're talking about are very alarming because a lot of young people are more favorable towards socialism than they are towards capitalism. Um, and so in in some ways I almost think what's happened here in New York, we might this might be a very tragic future for New York City, but one that gives people an accurate idea of how socialism works in in their lifetime to see it in front of them. >> And can you talk to us about how you feel faith plays into this, whether it's socialism or communism? >> Yeah. So, everybody believes in something. Everybody has faith in something. And I'm a Christian and I'm relatively new Christian um within the past eight years or so. And I if you don't have a faith in God, if you don't have a faith in something that's bigger than yourself, your own ability to reason that's bigger than the government, then you tend to put your faith in other things. And I think a lot of people on the left put their faith in government. They put their faith in government to fix their problems. government to make them happy. We've started to see um tweets from politicians about how, you know, we love you, we see you, like this sort of weird validating kind of message. That's not I don't need the government to tell me they love me, you know. So I think for some people um because of a lack of faith in a creator, they've started to put that faith into institutions that are not going to be able to to give you what a what a belief in God would give you. >> And perhaps this is not a coincidence, but in countries where they uh use socialism or communism, you see that it's it's a rather not very faithful society. So, I'm wondering if there's a correlation between that um a decrease in faith and a tendency to, you know, support socialism or communism. >> Yes. When you say not a very faithful society, do you mean in terms of >> being able to to see how that affects people's morality? Because I I think without a faith in God, like we tend towards um our baser nature. And so we start to see that in the culture and we've certainly seen that um coinciding with this support this growing support for socialism among young people. We've also seen this growing trend towards degeneracy. >> Right. I I'm just thinking as an example um China under the Chinese Communist Party's control um the CCP sees itself um essentially above God. >> Yes. >> Right. and then it imposes that ideology down to the people and then it has a tremendous impact on people's moral morality, you know, uh the Chinese people's morality. So that that's sort of what I'm getting at here. Um but I also wanted to ask you, Carrie, uh you were once a self-described uh social justice warrior and over the years uh you know we've seen a fusion of socialism and woke ideology like DEI for example and critical race theory. Why are more young Americans uh in particular drawn to these ideas? >> Yeah, I was in what I call the woke cult or the social justice cult for 20 years. Um, one reason is that we have become disconnected from our belief in our creator and so people are looking for something to fill that role and a lot of young people are picking it up in academia or even now in K through2 education. So I picked it up in I'm quite a bit older than you. Uh, I picked it up at college. >> I look young, but perhaps uh I'm a little bit older than you think, but anyways, >> but I picked it up at college. So, um, I was indoctrinated at Duke University in the late '9s. And at that time, it wasn't in K through 12 yet, but it was in the university system. And I looking back on it, I'm able to see that that the beliefs I was being taught what to think, not how to think. and and the beliefs that I picked up at university very much functioned like kind of like a religion in that woke ideology gives young people a sense of it it's like this is how you be are a good person and this is how to be a bad person. Um and it has a list of it has a whole list of rules and tenants and beliefs that they all adopt. Um and and what we see with some of these woke um beliefs like a belief in um pushing racism and sexism with DEI is that they are using the government. This is where the socialism part comes in is they are using the government to now push their faith to push their woke beliefs. That's that's one of the biggest reasons I I ended up voting for Trump in the past two elections, which I never thought I would vote for a Republican, but I ended up voting for Trump, is because he eventually came out very strongly against using public taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate children and young people with these racist ideas, with these sexist ideas, with this upside down morality. So Carrie, why do you think um people keep wanting to try socialism? Because if we look into history, socialism, um communism, it's never worked. And we've seen that repeatedly throughout history. And we don't have to look far back either. So why do you think people um they keep wanting to try this? Um because just a couple decades ago, we've seen socialism fail. um is does it actually change or is it different this time? Is it rebranded or is it the same? >> One which we've touched on already is our public school systems are failing. So people do not know history. I went to a great school and I didn't know history. I I wasn't giving given an accurate understanding of world history. So uh the other thing is that people don't read. Young people are not reading. If you look at the literacy rates, which are declining um for for high school graduates, there's a reason why unless they've ex have direct experience with it, they're not learning about it in school. They're not reading. Um and so unless they have direct experience with it, they they it sounds very good, right? Everything's free. We're going to give you everything for free. I mean, that sounds amazing. Of course, of course people get excited about that. >> Yeah. And I was just talking to um some guests before yesterday. Um you know nothing is free. >> Nothing's free. >> Nothing's free. People who provide a service they des they deserve to be paid. People who work they deserve to paid. So that money is going to come from somewhere. You can um tax the rich more. Um that's some of the argue arguments being made um by Mamani as well. I think um so that leads to my next question here. We we've seen uh how real issues like workplace abuse and segregation can be used by socialists and Marxists to push an agenda for struggle like between the rich and the poor, right? And whites and blacks for example. And socialist policies often target the wealthy for simply having more money or property and Mandani wants to increase taxes on them. Um are you concerned that this issue could escalate over time into a more severe form of discrimination? I am because what it is is um you're creating a scapegoat and you're saying the reason for your position in life is because of this group here and and when you do that you're kind of fueling people's resentment and you're taking away um their own their belief in their own ability to to affect the changes they want to see in their life. Um and and so the other thing is that that scapegoat group if you look at history continues to broaden. Okay. So it starts off with billionaires then millionaires then you know the the standard of living here in the United States the w the a lot of these people the leftists have not traveled outside of the US. We live like royalty. I mean we have compared to some parts of the world and so to some people you are the billionaire class. Do you know what I mean? Like we have I can we have running water, we have electricity, we we you take grant things we take for granted. Exactly. And so that scapegoat group always gets bigger. Um and the other thing is that it's not just that with socialism, as you said, nothing is free, right? Somebody's going to pay for it. But often they don't. What they're doing by po putting all the focus on taxing the rich is they're obstating the fact that you are going to pay for it too in a in a variety of ways like and if and if you don't pay for it, your children are going to pay for it because what we see over and over again with socialism is that it leads to food shortages. is when you put the government in in control of these things and freezing rent and um taking over the means of production that the average person ends up paying for it. You don't end up in a better place. You bring maybe you bring everybody down to where you're at um or worse. >> Yeah. And it destroys incentives as well. If >> Yes. If um if they're telling you your best is not going to be rewarded, then you won't try your best, right? And that's one of the shortcomings of, you know, putting a higher tax on the rich. Then you you just lose the incentive to, you know, um try your best, I think. >> Can I say something real quick? I just this year I didn't know about the history of the income tax for example in the US and I was reading some of the the history about when they instituted the the income tax here in America and I think it was around 1914 or 1919 and at the time the politicians were promising the American people look we're going to start taxing your income it's never going to go above 1%. And now that seems so crazy knowing where it's at today. So this whole idea of like once you open the door to these things to to um not being able to keep the fruits of your labor that it it seems like they continue to take more and more of it. >> Yeah, it's a slippery slope for sure. >> Okay. Um uh we have to wrap up here, but I want to ask you one more question. What would you say could help to bring more about constructive solutions that uphold the the equality and freedom of our uh founding fathers who um and what they envision >> a better education and so um what I tell parents I talk to a lot of parents um about you know their their kids who are about to go off to college or they're at that age about what's happening at the universities with woke indoctrination and my advice recently has been, you know, be very careful about what college you're sending your kids to. There uh there's a great one that I recommend usually is Hillsdale. Um but and especially for parents who have younger children, take them out of the public schools. I I wouldn't trust my you're sending them to the government to indoctrinate them. So I would say find a way to um you know either homeschool or put find a classical school, a private school, a Christian school. Um if you look at the SAT scores and the literacy rates for publicly educated K young people versus those who are being homeschooled and in these um private alternatives, the public school is failing. >> Yeah. I mean I I think you're so right about education. It could really solve a lot of problems in our society if we just tell tell our next generation uh what is correct uh what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do and um give them a sense of morality a moral compass. I think that uh that would really do society well and it could solve a lot of issues. Well Carrie it was such a pleasure to speak with you today. Thank you so much. >> You too. Thank you so much. >> President Trump's tariffs were at the top of the Supreme Court's oral argument schedule today. The justices pepper the government's solicitor general with questions about the president's power to impose global tariffs. Entities Arlene Richards explains both sides. >> The Trump administration solicitor general defended the president's power to impose global tariffs on Wednesday before a skeptical panel of Supreme Court justices. >> On April 2nd, President Trump determined that our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe. He further pronounced that the traffic of fentanyl and other opioids into our country has created a public health crisis taking hundreds of thousands of American lives. President Trump has declared that these emergencies are country killing and not sustainable. That they threaten the bedrock of our national and economic security and that fixing them will make America a strong, financially viable, and respected country again. A handful of small businesses in 12 Democratic states have accused the president of overstepping his authority by imposing global tariffs where the law doesn't allow it. They maintain that only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. >> Tariffs are taxes. They take dollars from Americans pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone. Yet here the president bypassed Congress and imposed one of the largest tax increases in our lifetimes. Many doctrines explain why this is illegal, like the presumption that Congress speaks clearly when it imposes taxes and duties and the major questions doctrine. But it comes down to common sense. It's simply implausible that in enacting AIPA, Congress handed the president the power to overhaul the entire tariff system and the American economy in the process. The court is not expected to make a ruling today, but it appears that the justices are concerned about the Trump administration's regulation of tariffs globally with several justices questioning whether he properly interpreted the statute in question. Arlene Richards, NTD News. >> President Trump delivered remarks today at a breakfast with Republican senators. The president commented on yesterday's elections, the government shutdown, and other topics. And last night it was uh you know not expected to be a victory. It was very Democrat areas, but I I don't think it was good for Republicans. I don't think it was good. I'm not sure it was good for anybody. But we had uh an interesting evening and we learned a lot and we're going to talk about that. But I thought we'd have a discussion after the press leaves about uh what last night represented and what we should do about it and also about the shutdown and how that relates to last night. I think uh if you read the pollsters, the shutdown was a big factor, negative for the Republicans and that was a big factor. Trump said he didn't feel Democrats are really getting the blame for what he called the disastrous Democrat created government shutdown, now officially the longest in American history. >> It's time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that's terminate the filibuster. It's the only way you can do it. Uh, and if you don't terminate the filibuster, you'll be in bad shape. We won't pass any legislation. There'll be no legislation passed for three and a quarter. We have three and a quarter years. That's a long time. If I thought that they weren't going to pass the filibuster, I wouldn't even bring it up. They're going to pass it within the first hour. If they take power, and it's more likely that they take power if we don't do because we're not going to be passing any legislation. Not going to approve anything. We're going to go three and a quarter years. There won't be one bill that we're going to pass cuz the easiest thing to pass is exactly right now what they won't pass and they'll do that and they'll wreak havoc. But let's assume they get in. They're doing it anyway, so it wouldn't matter. They're doing it anyway. >> Trump also criticized mail-in voting, calling it prone to corruption, and he took issue with blue slip rules that let senators block his US attorney nominations. Trump said his administration's tax cuts and job growth prove Republicans can deliver results if they can move legislation without obstruction. The president also recalled an incident from his meeting with Chinese regime leader Xi Jinping in South Korea last week. >> So he's here and he's got about six people on each side and every one of those people were standing like this. They were in attention and I made a comment to one of them and I got no response. I said are you going to answer me? I got no response and president she didn't let him have any. So there's any question I said I want my cabinet to behave like that. That's the way I'm demanding that my I want them sitting up like that Tim just nice and straight. I never saw posture like that. I've never seen men so scared in their lives. They have the equivalent the equivalent of a vice president. He he was I said are you going to answer my question and he's like he doesn't move. I said what's wrong with this guy? I will answer all questions. >> Trump was explaining how he tried talking to Chinese officials while they stood next to Xi Jinping and got no response. He made the room laugh. You as you just heard by saying next that Vice President JD Vance does not behave like that and budges into conversations. >> The NTSB is giving an update on the UPS cargo plane crash right now. Let's listen in. 15 last night at the Louisville airport. The NDSB is a independent federal agency that is tasked by Congress to investigate every civil aviation accident that occurs in the United States along with significant railroad, pipeline, rail, and highway events. We also issue safety recommendations aimed at preventing future losses. Now, before I go any further, uh on behalf of the entire NTSB, I want to just express our sincere condolences to those who are not only affected by losing family members in this accident, but those that were also injured and those that are still missing. It is a tough day for Louisville, for Kentucky. It's a tough day as being a a Kuckian myself. And I know what a great community this is, how impactful those people that suffered and have died are, and how and we've seen it all day. We know it is is tearing at the community and we're deeply sorry and we are here to try to find out not only what happened but why it happened and more importantly how do we prevent it from happening again. So here is some factual information we have at this time and I'm going to read a few notes to make sure we have it exact. The airplane involved was a McDonald Douglas 2 which was then altered to be an MD11F. The F stands for freighter. It is now handled by the Boeing Corporation. So whenever you hear that Boeing is a party, it is because of the merger with McDonald Douglas many years ago. The plane was manufactured in 1991 with a tail number of November 259 UP. The train plane was traveling from Louisville, Kentucky to Honolulu, Hawaii. There were three souls on board the plane. After being cleared for takeoff, a large plume of fire in the area of the left wing occurred during the takeoff roll. The plane lifted off and gained gained enough altitude to clear the fence at the end of runway 17R. Shortly after clearing that fence, it made impact with structures and the terrain off of the airport property. A postimpact fire ensued which covers approximately almost a half of a mile. Now we have viewed airport CCTV security coverage which shows the left engine detaching from the wing during the takeoff row. This and other videos along with evidence we are finding are very valuable asset to our investigators and helping us hone further which areas we were going to be focusing on as we move into further days of the investigation. Now let me tell you a little bit about our process at the NTSB. What we will do is analyze the facts, determine the probable cause of this accident and then issue a report on those recommendations. Now the investigator in charge of this is with me here. It's Chihun Shin who has been with the NTSB for 13 years. He is one of our more senior investigators and is in fact was leading one of the groups during the DCA crash. He has a number of other individuals with them. We have approximately 28 from our headquarters and other locations that are either on the ground or will be here before the end of the day. They're also being supported by dozens of individuals at our headquarters in Washington DC and other field offices. As part of this investigation, we will be forming specific groups. And when we form a group, it will be a focus area led by an NTSB individual along with subject matter experts that are in that field that can provide expertise to help analyze the evidence. Our current groups that are being formed are operations. They will review the history of the accident flight and the crew members duties for as many days before the crash that appear relevant. Our structures group will document the airframe wreckage, the accident scene, including the calculation of the impact angles to help determine the plane's pre input pre-impact course and altitude. We also have a power plants group. They will work on the examination of the engines and engine accessories. We have a systems group. They will study the components of the plane's hydraulic, electrical, pneumatic and associated systems together with the instruments and elements of the flight control system. Now, outside of that group, we have also brought in and another group that we will have will be maintenance, which will obviously be looking at maintenance, maintenance records, any work that's been done on this plane for as long as back as needed. We are also bringing in specialists in air traffic control, human performance, aircraft performance, reporters, government relations, media relations. And in addition to our investigators, we have brought five of our transportation disaster assistance team. They will be dealing with the survivors, the families, and others under what we call a federally legislated accident from the 1996 Family Assistance Act. Now, tonight we will be holding an organizational meeting and establishing parties to our investigation. Because we're very new into it, we will not be announcing the parties at this moment, but they will obviously be manufacturers of the aircraft, operators of the aircraft, unions representing some of the members. We'll have more details for the on that probably tomorrow during a briefing. Now, the NTSB offers this party status to those companies, government agencies, and associates. And you're just watching now the NTSB giving an update on the UPS plane crash in Louisville, saying that according to CCTV footage from the airport. It is it is seen that the left engine of the plane actually detached from the wing during takeoff. Next, in New York City, Democratic socialist Zoram Amdani won the mayoral race. Joining us to discuss is Bobby Anne Cox, a New York attorney and legal analyst and also a fellow at the Brownstone Institute. Um, Bobby Anne, always good to see you. Good afternoon. Can you give us your initial reactions here to the results of Mamani winning? >> Uh, well, I think most New Yorkers are stunned, at least the New Yorkers that have common sense. uh you know this man who has now won the the mayorship of New York City is um you know a young 34year-old who uh has never held a real job uh in the real world. Uh he is currently a sitting assemblyman representing his district of New York City up in Albany in the New York State Assembly. uh but he's he's only held that position uh for about five years and from what I understand his uh on his voting record he he's missed a large majority uh of the votes in in the assembly. So um you know this is really stunning. uh he is a self-proclaimed socialist, but when you listen to what he is proposing uh and you listen to the road map that he sees for New York City, uh many of his policies are actually more Marxist than they are socialist. Um if as if socialism wasn't bad enough for the the largest uh city we have in our nation. Um, so yeah, it's it's stunning and there are a lot of New Yorkers uh particularly small business owners um who are concerned with what comes next uh because uh the platform that Mandani has run on uh is really a progressive far-left platform saying he wants you know free buses uh free child care. He wants to freeze the rent so landlords can't increase rent uh on New York City tenants. Uh he wants to ban private property ownership. Um he wants to seize the means of production, meaning the government would uh control the production of goods. Um you know, he wants to close prisons. He wants to shift funding within the police department uh away from the police and uh people that keep you safe on the street and put it more towards, you know, the the social health uh of New Yorkers. So, these are really scary things. Of course, he's going to apparently raise uh taxes on the the rich in New York City to do all of this. But yeah, this this is stunning uh and quite concerning for many New Yorkers. >> So, Bobby, can I get your comments on M Donnie uh getting half the vote uh 50% and he said in his victory speech that um he emphasized a mandate for change? How do you see all this? >> Yeah. Well, you know, the laundry list I was just running down is is exactly the uh the change he is envisioning for New York. uh he wants the wealthy to pay for all of the services uh across the board for those that uh do not fall in that tax bracket. Uh you know, he garnered 50% of the vote as you said and um you know, in his acceptance speech last night, he credited his win to all these different uh you know, people that live in New York City from various countries around the world. uh you know he did not give credit to actual you know nativeborn Americans, nativeborn New Yorkers uh for his win. So he obviously appealed to the the uh foreignb born New Yorkers and um he said it in his speech last night and you know he he actually is a recent citizen of our country. He only became a citizen uh in 2018, even though his family moved here when he was 7 years old. Um, and he's still a citizen of Uganda, which is his home country where he was born and raised until he was seven. So, he has dual citizenship. Um, and which, you know, questions allegiance. And he has made it very clear that, um, you know, he will take from the rich and give to the lesser. uh well-endowed uh New Yorkers and uh it's very concerning. He he really is um proposing radical change which uh I think many realize is is negative radical change uh not positive because it will just plunge New York City further into debt. Uh and and you will see a mass exodus. I mean, just massive numbers of New Yorkers fleeing New York City. And when that tax base leaves, uh, he's not going to have many people left to tax. Uh, so this is going to be a huge problem, uh, that we see going forward. So I I want to get your thoughts on uh what do you think potentially whether there might be legal challenges um that could face Mannani when he's trying to implement the policies just that you just mentioned earlier. >> Absolutely. He's going to be facing I'm sure many illegal challenge uh in the months and years to come. I mean, for example, he said he wants to provide uh free buses in New York City. Well, you know, the mayor does not control the MTA, right? The the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is controlled by New York State at the state level, uh not the mayor at the city level. So if he wants to make buses free, which by the way would cost approximately, you know, upwards of $500 million a year, um that would have to come from Albany, from the New York State Legislature and the governor. That's not something that Mandani has the power to do. uh you know, same thing with, you know, if he's going to try to freeze the rent, uh you know, and do rent stabilization laws or or whatever he has planned, um you know, that's going to have to come from Albany. That's not something that the mayor of New York City has unilateral power to do. Um if he starts to do these things, uh I'm sure he's going to be faced with legal challenges. Um you know, same thing with the raising of the taxes. you know, it's it's approximated that if he does all of these freebie programs that he's talking about, uh, you know, freezing the rent, free child care for all, you know, free buses, transportation, if he does actually try to implement all of this, it's going to cost New York City an additional 9 billion with a B, $9 billion a year uh, to implement these things. So, you know, where is he going to get that money from? He can't unilaterally raise taxes on the wealthiest New York City dwellers. That's not a power that he has. That has to come from Albany. Uh so, yeah, we I'm sure we are going to be seeing many legal challenges coming at him. >> Okay. So, Bobby, while I have you here, I really wanted to get your thoughts on something I noticed about the ballot. Um, so Mandani's name appears twice on the top of the ballot, right? And Cuomo is, you know, sort of off to the side of the ballot, and I even saw Eric Adams uh name still on the ballot even though he's not running anymore in that election. I'm just wondering if there's anything to be said about that. >> Yeah. So, I know that that was a big question that was, you know, racing across social media platforms yesterday. Um, so what happens in New York State, uh, this is statewide, not just in the city, is that, um, since the 1940s, you can crossendorse a candidate. Uh, meaning that more than one political party in our state can endorse the same person for office. Um, and so when that happens, you will see that person's name on the ballot more than once. you'll see them listed for each party that they garnered the endorsement from. So in the case of Mandani, you saw him under the Democrat and under the working families parties. Um so you know same thing if you get the the on the other side if you get the endorsement from let's say the Republican party and the conservative party uh you will then see your name on the ballot twice under each of those. So, um, it is something that is, you know, quote unquote legal in New York State because the law passed in the 1940s. Um, but I understand the outrage from many people saying that it's unfair. Uh, because if you see just psychologically, if you see somebody's name on the ballot more than once, uh, it makes you think that the person is either more important or more powerful or more likely to win. So, I do understand that concern. And then as far as Eric Adams being on the ballot, even though he dropped out of the race weeks ago, uh that is because there is a deadline to actually drop out of a political race. Uh and he missed that deadline. So when he dropped out, the deadline had passed and therefore the ballots were already in print and so his name still appeared on the ballots. uh which was probably confusing to a lot of people um because it's not common knowledge that there's a deadline and even if you drop out after the deadline, your name is still going to be on the ballot. Um, and as far as where you saw Andrew Cuomo's name on the ballot, again, that is all dictated by policy and law, uh, you know, the the top names, the the first party is going to be, uh, the party whose candidate garnered the most, uh, results or the highest number of votes in the last election. So, that's why you couldn't really find his name. It was kind of tucked in the corner and he wasn't in one of the major Democrat or Republican parties. Well, okay, Bobby, I do believe that is our time today. Um, it is always great to speak with you. Thank you. >> Yes, thanks for having me. >> Coming up, we'll have more discussion on the election in New York City after this break. Stay with us. A performance that truly matters. for each and every one of us. This is what you've been waiting for. Shen Hun. Get tickets now at shenyun.com. And for more analysis of last night's elections, joining us now is Matt Clink, a Republican strategist and political analyst. And we have Javier Palirez, founder and CEO of the US Hispanic Business Council. So, first of all, thank you both for joining us today. Always a pleasure. And I'll start with you, Max. Uh Matt, how significant in your in your view is the sweeping wins uh last night for Democrats? Well, look, if if you're a Democrat, I think you look at last night as a a plan for recovery from a disastrous November of 2024. They overperformed or Democratic gubanatorial candidates overperformed uh in New Jersey and in Virginia. Uh they won three Supreme Court seats in Pennsylvania or re they retained them. They picked up two statewide offices in Georgia. So, I it's a it was a good night for Democratic candidates yesterday. Uh winning kind of smooths over a lot of the rough edges in a party. I think that the buzzword will be affordability heading into the the 2026 midterm elections. Uh the only thing that I think that the Democratic party is going to have to reconcile is the push for a more progressive party versus the moderates. You had obviously you have Havana on the Hudson with Zoran Mamdonni in New York City. Couple that with the two moderates that got elected in Virginia and in New Jersey. So, uh, all in all, the Democrats should be very very happy with yesterday's election results. >> So, Hava, let me go to you. Um, how do you view yesterday's results? >> Um, you know, I I I I agree with Matt. Uh, Democrats are celebrating this morning. Um, but I really saw to me it was less a vote toward Democrats than it was to moderate candidates. Uh, candidates that were pragmatic uh versus being partisanship uh focused on partisanship. Um uh they they they particularly in the case of uh of Mickey Cheryl and and uh and Spanberger, they they focused on tangible outcomes. They they had a background and a history of bipartisanship. Um, I think that's what people voted for less than Republican versus Democrat necessarily. These two particular women happen to be Democrats and in that party. But I' I'd rather I'd rather think of it, Matt, as as you know, people were looking for some kind of central centrist kind of approach to things. And and I think voters on both sides um are are getting tired of of the extremes. And so what they found in these two candidates, at least in New Jersey and and uh and in Virginia, were were two individuals that I think were focused on the kitchen table issues, the economic issues, on tangible outcomes, and less on the fighting and the and the bickering back and forth. And I think that's really what what what the message is. That's what I got out of it anyway. >> Okay. So Matt, first, do you agree? And second, can you talk a little bit more about the margins in which the candidates won in Virginia, in New Jersey, you know, double digits? Was the size of the win beyond what was expected in these states? >> So, I I would agree in the sense that kitchen table issues rose to the forefront. And I think that, you know, what what I took from yesterday, among other things, is that the American public, they don't care which party is in power, but they want their kitchen table issues resolved. And the fact that Donald Trump has held the White House for nine months and the Republicans have held both houses of Congress, they got the keys right now. And affordability is still an issue. Yes, gas prices are down. Yes, egg prices are down. But other things are more expensive. And I'll give you an example. You know, uh Mickey Cheryl said that she promised not to raise taxes and she said that she would work to get clean energy. So if she can deliver on that, she's going to do well. If she can't, the New Jersey electorate is going to react harshly toward her. And I'm sorry, what was your second question? >> What What do you make of the size uh of the wins, the margin? Yeah, look, these are these were states that the Democrats won in November of 2024. So, I don't think it was ever a question of Republicans winning. Uh I do think though that the margin of victory indicates that there was a momentum in these races yesterday for Democrats, that it gave them a tangible and a visible opportunity to express their frustration with what they see is going on in Washington DC. Uh, and I I don't necessarily believe that it's extreme one way or the other. I think that they looked and they said, "Am I better off than I was nine months ago?" And the answer to that question is, uh, no, or I'm not sure. And they reacted accordingly. And I think that the the the size of the vote is what really should send ripples through the Republican establishment that they need to they need to focus on domestic politics a lot more than they are in terms of you know international stuff. It's all great that Trump is doing what he's doing overseas but the US economy needs some care and feeding too. >> So Javier, what about you? Uh does uh does the results indicates uh the results do they indicate that voters feel less positive about the economy under the current administration? >> Um I I certainly they were more positive when this administration was a bit newer. They've grown less positive um over time. Um the net of it is they don't feel terrible about the the the situation in the economy right now, but um but it isn't real clear in their mind exactly what they got for this deal. Um, I also agree with, you know, there appears to be a lot of attention on the international uh and global issues, perhaps rightly so. Um, but that doesn't solve the problem for the average American family. Uh, what what the folks we're talking to uh very clearly indicated is look, you know, I've got my business to run. I've got my family to take care of. I've got the issues that are right in front of me. And it's great that we're involved in in other parts of the world and bringing peace. And you know, our leader is trying to be a global peacemaker. Get that. That's great. But I'm not sure uh what I'm going to do with, you know, the next couple of months, the next year. It isn't clear to me. And I think what happened in the case of of New Jersey and Virginia is you saw two women who were again very pragmatic. They they didn't spend a lot of time being partisan. They spent a lot of time being pragmatic and having a common sense authentic conversation with the audience and that was the difference. The they were focused on tangible outcomes. They weren't, you know, bickering back and forth and name calling. There wasn't any any effort toward that. What they focused on was here's a better view for the future. Here's what I think I can do. Nothing too outlandish. And I think the voters very aggressively um reacted to that and the results are what we saw this morning. >> So Matt, do you think >> count to counter that? >> Yeah. I mean, look, two things to counter that when you're in a state like New Jersey that Kla Harris won by 16, you don't have to go on the on the attack mode when you're campaigning in the state. So you can focus on your messaging and stay on message because your opponent has to bring you down. And that's the same Kla Harris won by six points in Virginia. I I will point out too that you know the the silver lining for Democrats is that they did very well yesterday, but the clouds that emerge into that sky uh are that these elections are not indicative of performance in an even year elections. Just look at what the Democrats did in 2023 before 2024. They won the governor's race in Kentucky and the Democrats were saying, "Oh, this gives us a great opportunity to keep the White House, you know, no matter who for a Democrat." They picked up seats in Virginia. And yet, what happened? Donald Trump won. So, again, these races are quirky. They tend to focus on local issues and candidate qualities a lot more than broader political parties. So look, the Democrats are going to make great hay over this and they should. It was I think that VC Ramaswami said it best. The Republicans got their their a kicked yesterday and I think that he was right. But that doesn't mean that this is a trend going forward and the Democrat are on easy street. They've got some hard decisions going forward on whether their party is the Zoron Mandomy model or the Spanberger and uh uh Mickey Cheryl model because both factions are vying for control of that party right now. >> So Javier, it's an interesting point that Matt has raised. So, what do you think about the direction that the Democratic Party is going right now now that it has a Democratic socialist as New York City mayor? >> You know, I I don't know that that spells the future for the entire party. Look, the Republican party is struggling in and of itself. They themselves are trying to figure out kind of what direction they're going to go in. Um, the fact of the matter is that, um, I I believe that the American people, and we're talking to business owners literally every day, um, are tired of of the extremes. They're they're tired of, um, you know, a lot of a lot of talk, campaign promises, uh, but frankly, nothing is being delivered. Um, I think, uh, President Trump has done a great job of setting up some really goodics, but the delivery, the execution, um, again, I think he needs to be back home. He needs to be, you know, guiding this ship. Um, he set up some great, and I've been on your air many times talking about some of the great winds that this administration has put forth in terms of small business and the economy in general. Uh, but what you're seeing and what I'm hearing from our constituency is that, you know, they're tired of of of the the bick the bickering, the the partisanship. They want to see more more bipartisan collaboration in our elected leaders. And I think what you saw in New Jersey and Virginia has less to do with being Democrat or Republican. It had to do with a candidate that was talking to the people in an authentic fashion, that was elegant about what she was talking about. In both cases, didn't make some huge promises and didn't spend a lot of time bickering or putting other people down, but rather focused on what she was going to bring and what she was going to make uh possible for for the people in both their states. And the results are what you got. People want moderator, people that lead from the center. And this is what we're seeing in both New Jersey and and Virginia. By the way, uh Republicans that do the same thing could have the same kind of results. If you see Republicans talking about leading from the center, bipartisanship, you know, tangible outcomes, economic and kitchen table issues that mer that matter to the American family, they're going to win as well. So, this could apply to either party. It has very little to do with whether someone is Democrat or Republican. And believe me, I talk to American people all the time. I'm not spending a lot of time in Washington DC. I'm talking to the American people. >> Hey Javier, how are you going to feel when Abigail Spartanberger does a partisan redistricting in Virginia? How does that affect kitchen table issues for Virginia voters? Because that's what the legislature is going to do >> and the governor will likely support. It may very well do that in response to what's happening in Texas. And again, I hope that we don't go there anymore. I hope that we can let the American people make the decisions that matter instead of the gamesmanship on both sides of the aisle. And look, Matt, you know a lot more about this than I do. I'm a simple businessman. But the fact of the matter is, you know, I think Americans are tired of the gamesmanship. They're tired of the acrimony. and they want leaders, whether Republican or Democrat, to start leading from the middle and be centrist and start to collaborate with each other to move the American people and the American economy forward. >> Okay, Matt, we just have a little bit of time left. Uh, anything else you'd like to add? And also, I wanted to get your thoughts as well as to how you view California's uh Californians uh voting in favor of Prop 50. >> Uh, it's a big win for Governor Gavin Newsome. uh he took a calculated risk and that risk proved successful. Uh he what he did was very successful in California in the sense that he made the redistricting a choice between keeping California California or siding with Donald Trump. And when the incumbent president has a 27% popularity rating in California, it was an easy choice and it was a 6535 uh win for the yes side. uh what it will result in is potentially five seat pickup for uh the Democrats. Unfortunately, what that does for Republicans which comprom which have about 40% of the electorate, it means that they will have about 8% of the congressional seats in California. I will add by the way that you know Maryland is also considering redistricting. Maryland has seven Democrats and one Republican. They get 40% Republican vote. So the Republicans will be completely disenfranchised. Uh so I mean look, redistricting has gone on in America since 1812. It's the most blatant political act. And historically, the Democrats have been way more uh successful and way more sophisticated at redistricting. I do find it ironic that when Republicans say we're going to do what Democrats are doing, that the Democrats react. All it is is ultimately it's a race to the bottom and we're going to get a lot more polarizing delegations which Javier will make your move to the middle that much more impossible because there will be no reason to do so. >> Well, all right. Uh we do have to wrap up uh for this conversation today. Thank you both Matt Aier for your time. >> Thank you.