Alright, welcome back to Discourse. I'm your host, Wayne Unger, and we are recording today's episode on Wednesday, November 5th, the day after election day. And the time now is 10 30 in the morning. And as always, things may have changed since today's episode is purely unscripted. It is me talking about the election that occurred yesterday and just sharing some of my thoughts as well as the results.

Of course. So if it is a little bit all over the place, it's literally thoughts that are coming to the top of my head and I'm communicating them out to you all with pretty much minimal editing on my end in post-production. So let's just recap where we are. Yesterday was election day. It was an off cycle election, meaning that it was not a midterm election and it was not a presidential election.

So the big elections in this country occur every two years, every even [00:01:00] numbered year. We begin with that information really just to level set the significance of yesterday's election. So I think you will hear pundits talk about how it was a major referendum on the Trump administration and while that, I think while that is, uh, I think a little bit true, i, I also think

that we have to be cognizant of the turnout. So turnouts in odd number election years are notably less than any even year when you have a midterm and then certainly a presidential election. So we can read a little bit into the results, but. Perhaps we have to put an asterisk over the results knowing that turnout is lower than what we would expect.

Now that said, the Democrats won pretty handedly last night. The Democrats won the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and of course the, probably the biggest story in [00:02:00] the country right now is a self-identifying Democrat socialist winning in New York City, winning the mayoral race against a former governor of New York, a, a name that is well recognized throughout the state of New York and across the country.

Andrew Cuomo lost pretty handedly by many percentage points if last time I checked, it was something like 10 percentage points . Now he ran as an independent after he lost the primary to Mamdani. And Mamdani of course was the Democrat candidate in the election. But some argued. That the Republican in the election, and I forget his name off the top of my head, but the Republican helped split the vote and that Andrew Cuomo could have won if the Republican candidate had dropped out, assuming that all of the Republican votes would have went to Andrew Cuomo.

I don't think that that is true because again, the last time I checked the results, the Republican candidate got something like [00:03:00] 7% of the vote, and so Mandani won by. 10 ish percentage points. Even if we add the Republican vote to Andrew Cuomo, it still was not enough to beat Zohran Mamdani. Okay. So I just wanted to put that out the way because I think pundit who are arguing that the Republican did dis justice by not jumping out of the race, are just falling flat because they're not looking at the results.

It is clear. That the city of New York voted overwhelmingly for Mamdani, and it is clear that they agreed with his platform and his message, which primarily focused on the concept of affordability and that new York City has become unaffordable for many New Yorkers, and then many, if you think about it, even visitors to New York, so those who commute in for work as well as those who visit the big [00:04:00] Apple, because as we know, New York is a tremendous.

A tremendous tourist destination attracting people from all over the world. So for all of those reasons, I think it's important to, to recognize that New York spoke very clearly last night. Now compare that a Democrat socialist winning in New York City against two gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, which many argue are bellwethers for what is to come ahead of the midterm election.

And I don't know election data well enough to look back and say, yes, that is a true statement or not. But if it's any indication, we know that New Jersey and Virginia have swung both ways in its gubernatorial elections. So for example, perhaps the most famous Republican out of New Jersey to have served [00:05:00] as governor of New Jersey is Chris Christie.

Now in Virginia, it also swings back and forth. So, in those states, we had pretty moderate Democrats win in those states. Virginia, for example, also elected its first female governor in the history of the states. So props to breaking that glass ceiling in the state. So we had moderates win in two states and a democratic socialist win in New York City, the largest metropolitan area in the United States, and one of the largest economies in the world.

The last time I checked it was something like. 12th largest economy in the world. And that is when you compare it to many countries around the world. So with over approximately 200 countries around the world, New York City being the 12th largest economy, that's pretty substantial, right? So Zohan Zohran, [00:06:00] I'm gonna mispronounce his name several times throughout this and forgive me.

The Mayor Elect in New York, men is a 34-year-old. Generation, millennial now elected to lead the largest city in the country with a workforce of over 300,000 employees. and a Budget in the billions of dollars. And I think that that is just incredible. Now, of course, with his limited experience in running an employer, an organization that large, I hope.

He succeeds. I hope that he succeeds, but he has not been tested as a chief executive of an organization that large before. Granted, most people have not been tested as a chief executive of an organization that large. For comparison, and I looked this up last night, [00:07:00] JP Morgan Chase, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, led by CEO, Jamie Diamond.

Jamie Diamond as the CEO of JP Morgan Chase also leads an organization of 300,000 plus employees, and so that is kind of the scale that we're talking about here. Now, of course, those organizations are entirely different. You have a financial institution, which coincidentally is headquartered in New York City, and you have a municipality that is responsible for everything from.

Of course, trash collection to advisory, to tax collection. I mean, the departments in New York City are endless compared to most American cities. The size of the mayor's office is pretty incredible considering the size of most cities and the services that those cities offer. Okay, [00:08:00] all of that is the say.

The Democrats won pretty handedly last night, but I think we have to put the asterisk over whether this is a true bellwether for what's to come.

Turnout in an odd year election is simply not as great as an even year election, as the midterms and as the presidential race. But if we layer the election results from last night over the approval poll, the, the approval and disapproval polls of the Trump administration as, uh, if, if we wanna look more deeply into it,

I think we are seeing something where voters are incredibly disappointed in the Trump administration. And I also think we are seeing a new message come outta the Democratic party, a winning message. So if we rewind to this, uh, what many pundits say, it was an overwhelming defeat in 2024 when Kamala Harris at [00:09:00] the top of the ticket lost to Donald Trump, both in the electoral vote as well as the popular vote.

I think if we compare the 2024 election to the 2025 election from yesterday, we see notable progress in the Democratic Party and that progress in the Democratic Party and specifically the platform, I think led to the success that the Democrats had yesterday. But also the failure of the Republicans. If we look at the Trump administration and what it has done in, say, the first 11 months of the Trump administration, w we see this evolution so much has happened over the last year.

So let me, let me detail this. In New York City. Voters seem to have gravitated towards a concrete message with a charismatic leader leading that [00:10:00] message, and one that everyone or most people in New York City could relate to. And that was affordability. And in like in 2024. Where affordability was the top message.

I mean, it was so many voters in 2024 voted for Donald Trump thinking that the economy was going to improve under a Trump administration because it had been so strong under Trump One, and then of course, eroded when COVID hit.

I think if you look more closely, the Trump administration has not improved the economy in the first 11 months. In fact, while the stock market sure is hitting highs and those who are invested in the stock market are reaping some returns there, overall, the ordinary American is not feeling that the economy is better today than it was on January 20th.

On [00:11:00] January 19th, at the end of the Biden administration, inflation continues to increase, and as I have argued on this show, I think that that's a major part due to Trump's tariff policies. This on again, off again, kind of. Bipolar Trump tariff strategy. In fact, I don't even think it's a strategy, but put that aside for a second.

So, coincidentally, the Supreme Court is hearing a case right now as I'm recording this on the tariffs and to see whether Trump has exceeded his statutory authority that Congress delegated in the I-E-E-P-A-A epa. Which is the International Emergency Economics Powers Act, which was the source that he has invoked the source of his legal authority that he has invoked to implement so many tariffs around the world, um, including those kind of global blanket 10% tariffs.

Again, I talked about it on the show, and we can put that aside. I encourage you to go back and listen to [00:12:00] those episodes. All of that is to say, I think. Yes, there is some indication that voters yesterday highlighted some of their dissatisfaction about the Trump administration. Trump too. But I also think voters yesterday highlighted the fact that there are gravitating towards a concrete message to get behind and if, if, if we have learned anything.

In the last couple of elections over the last, say 10, 15 years, is that when we run on a platform that people can kind of identify with, that they can belong to, we actually turn out the vote and people vote for that message. People vote for that platform. But when you simply run on an anti-Trump platform.

That is insufficient. That doesn't necessarily translate to votes and to wins because I think you're not actually motivating [00:13:00] people to come out to vote because perhaps we have normalized Trump and his behaviors, his actions, to where we aren't really motivated by this anti-Trump message anymore.

Whereas perhaps we were in 2020, but we were also motivated by the pandemic in 2020. Right. So messages win. If you think back to the 2008 election with Barack Obama and then fast forward to the 2012 election also with Barack Obama, his message is what resonated. So many people adopted and, and felt like they belonged to this message of hope and change.

And I think a part of that was invoked in the New York City mayoral race.

But when we run on a pure anti-Trump message, which I think perhaps the Democrats counted on too much in [00:14:00] 2024, that doesn't necessarily translates to voters turning out the vote. New York saw a record turnout yesterday, and I think that that is telling when we deliver a message on what the change could be for this country.

So as we look ahead towards the midterm election here. In 2026, yes. Midterm elections. My belief and I, I do subscribe to this, is midterm elections are a referendum on the president who is currently occupying the White House. And I think we'll see Democrats perform well in the midterm election is, especially if Trump continues down this pathway of disregarding the rule of law, of building multimillion dollar things like a ballroom. When the government is shut down holding something like a Great Gatsby holiday, excuse me, not [00:15:00] holiday, it was a Halloween party, a great Gatsby Halloween party. Granted, that was a private party at his resort in Florida, but nonetheless, what is that message? What is, what are the optics of it? Right? A great Gatsby party, a roaring twenties, as the government has shut down, as Americans are going hungry because Snap has now been cut.

As other Americans who work for the federal government are not getting their paychecks, it's just incredibly bad optics. But again, I don't think the Trump administration cares. I don't think the Trump administration cares about optics. I don't think Trump himself cares that he is at his resort eating a great dinner with so many wealthy people sitting around him dressed in roaring twenties.

Great Gatsby theme for Halloween. When Americans in Kentucky and Iowa and Idaho are going hungry because they don't have SNAP benefits, I really don't think he cares.

 So the [00:16:00] 2026 midterm election, I think will serve as a referendum on the Trump administration.

But the other thing I wanna highlight is the California ballot initiative, uh, for lack of a better term, that's what I'm just gonna call it on gerrymandering. And so again, I've talked about political gerrymandering, partisan gerrymandering on the show a little bit. But in short, just to bring everybody up to speed, we know that several Republican-led states like Texas have moved over the last couple of months to redistrict to draw new congressional maps for their states so that Republicans could have a hand or a kind of a leg up, I think is the saying, a leg up in the midterm elections in 2026.

In order for the Republicans to hold the house, number one, Republicans wouldn't be doing this right? Logic says Republicans would not be doing this if they felt that holding onto the majority was [00:17:00] safe. So the fact that they're doing this merely says that the Republican Party and Donald Trump himself and Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, fear that they're going to lose their majority in 2026.

So much so that effectively they're changing the rules because it is abnormal for states to redistrict in the middle of a decade. It is normal for districts. In fact, it is tradition for. For states to redistrict to draw new congressional maps. Every 10 years after a new census comes out and after the electoral votes, the number of representatives in each state after those numbers shift around a little bit as the population moves across the country.

Now, California Governor Gavin Newsom responded to Texas and said, you know what? If you are going to do it, we're going to do it as well. Texas did not [00:18:00] walk back from that, and in fact, they moved forward with redistricting. So Gavin Newsom moved forward with redistricting Gavin Newsom for California, put the ball in Texas's court and said, if you do it, we're going to do it.

If you stop doing it, we'll stop. But Texas charged ahead. So California charged ahead now. Republicans and conservative media have railed California for seeking this new map, this new congressional map that would shift several districts into democratic favor. And I think the theory here is the, the, the math could come out to be plus five Democratic seats, um, in California.

And we saw messages on say, Jesse Walters, you saw Fox News and OAN and Newsmax all talk about their pundits. Their commentators all talk about how California is defying. Voters will by redistricting, [00:19:00] let me be clear on my own position, I am fundamentally against partisan gerrymandering.

I'm also fundamentally against racial gerrymandering. I'm just against gerrymandering because I truly believe that the proper way of doing this is every vote has equal power in this country that no vote is gerrymandered into less significance. The battle for power between the political parties shouldn't come down to how you draw the districts.

And instead, they should come down to the message and the candidate be that as in May, partisan gerrymandering is fundamentally part of our system and it's important to note exactly what is happening in California. So many years ago, California. Adopted this independent redistricting commission, uh, [00:20:00] uh, model.

And many states have moved in that direction. Arizona being one of them, as an example. And this independent redistricting commission is tasked with drawing the lines in hopefully a non-partisan way or a lesser partisan way. And California has done that for several times. Several, for, for a while now.

We'll just put it that way. But keep in mind, and this is the part that conservatives overlook, either purposefully or inadvertently, and this is the part that I know conservative media is just flat out ignoring the independent redistricting commission in the state of California was enacted or adopted, or implemented, whatever you wanna say, after a vote of the California people. And yesterday, which passed again overwhelmingly.

Yesterday the California people went back to the ballot and voted on whether they wanted to essentially set [00:21:00] aside the maps that the independent redistricting commission implemented. At the last census, or following the last census in 2020. Now Republicans argue this is disregarding the California voter will and democracy.

It's undermining democracy because if the voters wanted an independent commission, that somehow yesterday's initiative undermines the vote. See, that's just, that's just so preposterous in my eyes because it, it's preposterous because yesterday was also a vote, and if voters want to overturn what they previously said, I don't, there's nothing wrong with that.

In fact, that is the exercise of democracy where if you have voters today say something different than the voter said 10, 15, 20, 25 years ago. That is democracy. That [00:22:00] is the vote. And so voters yesterday showed up in California and they voted to disregard what they said many years ago. That's completely proper.

That is democracy in its finest, right? So in fact, I'll argue. That California did what the people wanted, where many Republican states who have sought to redistrict over the last couple of months and into the next couple of months, like Texas, they didn't put it for a vote. In fact, it was partisan policy makers, state legislators, as well as perhaps their Republican governors leading the charge, and in fact, that.

Is less democratic because they didn't put that for a vote. So I argue that California has been more democratic about redrawing their district maps than the Republican [00:23:00] states because the Republican states just did it single-handedly. The state legislature just did it. And like in Texas, Texas governor, Greg Abbott just signed it into law essentially.

Right. In fact, if you put it for a vote in Texas, okay, truthfully, I think Texas would've voted for it. But if you put it for a vote in Texas, you might have seen voters reject the mid decade, partisan driven, purely political redrawn of the maps.

And the other states are true as well, the other Republican states. So. Anyways, all of that is the same. I think Republicans, the GOP, conservative media, the pundits on Fox News as an example, the commentators on Fox News are just full of Hot BS air arguing that California somehow is not respecting the will of the voters.[00:24:00]

But in fact, they put it up for a vote that is now respecting the will of voters. Yet at the same time, they don't highlight how partisan policymakers, state legislators, as well as their governors moved in a direction that might be contrary to what the voters actually want. Okay. So that's what's happening on the redistricting front.

I just wanted to get that off my chest if you couldn't tell, because I'm tired of hearing about the Republicans argue that somehow it's not okay in California, but it's completely okay in Texas. No, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth in that regard. Can you tell I'm a little worked up today?

It's fun. It's fun. It's fun when I'm not scripted, you know, when I don't script out an episode talking about a deep issue for all of us to better understand like I did with the shutdown in the most recent episode, which again, I [00:25:00] encourage you to go back and listen to. Okay. We're approaching the 30 minute mark, and that's where I wanted to end this episode.

I did not want this episode to turn into a full length episode. So let me just recap what I've said on this episode. Democrats have won. Overwhelmingly across the country yesterday, during the November 4th election. We can read a little bit into it, but I think we must not read too much into it. If there's anything that I take away from last night, it is when the Democrats run on a concrete key message on a platform that people can gravitate towards, they win.

When you run on a pure anti-Trump message, the apathy of the voters doesn't turn out the vote. So while there is an anti-Trump sentiment throughout the [00:26:00] country, that s some are motivated by, it is generally an insufficient message to get people to the ballot box. So that's where I think I'm at. The other thing I wanted to mention before I close out, because I have something like 45 seconds left, is Chuck Schumer and the baby boomer generation of the Democratic Party.

It is time. It is time for you to retire, to step down because I think if we saw anything last night, it is, we have a new generation of democratic leaders stepping up. Winning elections, energizing voters. We see that with, for example, a OC and we saw that last night with Mamdani. So it is time that you take a step back to the baby boomers who are leading and [00:27:00] politics across the country, it is time for you to say, you know what? I think I should retire. I think it's time for a new generation of leadership. I think it's time for me to pass the baton of leading the government in this country to the next generation of leaders with the new ideas, with new energy, with new Spirit.

That is it for today. Thank you for joining us for this bonus episode of Discourse. This is Discourse with Wayne Unger, and I'll see you next time.

That's it for today's episode of Discourse. Thank you for tuning in and being part of the conversation. You can catch future episodes of discourse wherever you get your podcasts. If you found this discussion insightful, be sure to subscribe, leave a review and share it with others who value thoughtful analysis over the noise.

You can also join the conversation by visiting discourse paw.org [00:28:00] and following me on x and blue sky at Prof Unger for more insights and updates. Until next time, keep thinking critically, stay curious and engage with respect. We'll see you soon.

Discourse is a commentary podcast for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute professional advice or legal advice. The opinions expressed are solely those of the hosts and any guests, and do not reflect the views of any employer, institution, or organization. This podcast is not journalism and does not adhere to journalistic principles.

It offers analysis, opinion, and discussion on current events, but should not be relied upon as a news source. Listeners should consult qualified professionals for legal or otherwise expert advice specific to their situation. Thanks for listening.