E-mail a friendAdam Nagourney
airdate November 4, 2009
As The New York Times' national political correspondent, Adam Nagourney has covered several campaigns, including Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate run, the reelection of President George W. Bush and President Obama's election. He previously worked for USA Today, as White House correspondent, covering Bill Clinton's '92 presidential campaign and the first year of the Clinton White House, and as the New York Daily News Albany bureau chief. Nagourney co-authored Out for Good and holds a B.A. from State University of New York at Purchase.
Political correspondent explains the significance of the president's campaigning for Gov. Corzine in the NJ election. (1:43)
Full Interview (10:33)
Adam Nagourney
Tavis: Adam Nagourney is the national political correspondent for "The New York Times" who's been covering the key races in New Jersey and Virginia and upstate New York. He joins us tonight from Washington. Adam, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Adam Nagourney: Thanks for having me.
Tavis: Let me start our conversation with your words in the paper today, and I quote, "The Republican victories in the races for New Jersey and Virginia governors put the party in a stronger position to turn back the political wave President Obama unleashed last year, setting the stage for Republicans to raise money, recruit candidates, and ride the excitement of an energized base as the party heads into next year's midterm elections," close quote. So there was something riding on last night, yes?
Nagourney: Yeah, I want to be careful here. Yes, there was. I think this helps the Republican Party. I think it helps the Republican Party, as you just read, raise money, it helps them recruit candidates, it helps excitement, it helps them get good attention. It's not predictive. I think that people should be careful about saying well, because a Republican won in Virginia and because a Republican won in New Jersey last night, that means that Republicans are going to do really well next year in the congressional race.
It could be true, could not be true, but I think I'd be very careful about taking that extra step. But it definitely is a help for the party, no question about it.
Tavis: I agree with you on your statement just now, but was last night in any way instructive and informative for Democrats?
Nagourney: There's two things I would watch for, again, just sort of as glimmers or hints; I wouldn't take it too far. One is independent voters - one of the reasons that President Obama did so well across the country, and particularly in the state of Virginia, which as you know was a purple state, as we say, going back and forth between Democrats and Republicans, is because he won the support of independent voters.
Now what happened last night is a lot of independent voters swung over to the Republican gubernatorial candidates in both states, and there's been evidence in polling recently that independent voters are particularly upset with President Obama on spending and deficit issues. So that's something that if I was in the White House I would be concerned about. That's the first thing.
The second thing, and we can come back to it if you want, is as you know, President Obama put together and remarkable political coalition last year of first-time voters, of African Americans voters, of young voters, and there's no evidence that those same voters came out to support these gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia, despite the fact that he campaigned on their behalf.
Tavis: Doesn't that just mean that he wasn't on the ballot and that's why they didn't turn out?
Nagourney: Here's what I'm saying - I think that is probably the case. I think that we should be careful in saying that therefore, the Obama coalition is gone. He wasn't on the ballot.
Second of all, the other point there is that these were not federal candidates. These were candidates running for state office. These were not, say, senators or members of the House who are going to vote on healthcare or the kind of issues that really matter to Obama voters last year, so we need to be a little careful.
Nonetheless, we have yet to see evidence so far, and I would say it's early, that the kind of coalition that President Obama assembled and stunned the political world with last year has been put to use in either getting legislation through or in this case helping other candidates.
Again, not predicting; just something you want to keep an eye on. That's the difference I'm trying to make here.
Tavis: All right, I hear the point. So we know that Obama, again, was not on the ballot himself last night, number one.
Nagourney: That's correct.
Tavis: We know, number two, given your good insight of a moment ago, that these persons last night were at best state officials. They're not federal officials, so they're not voting on healthcare, et cetera.
But these persons in these various states, namely New Jersey and Virginia, are upset about something and they did, in fact, vote for candidates, although not federal candidates, they voted for people who have a different view on these issues at the national level than the president does. Does that make sense?
Nagourney: That does, but two points to keep in mind. One is I think if you look at exit polling, there was a fairly small number who said that their vote was based on how they felt about President Obama, and then in particular in Virginia, where I spent a bunch of time on, the issue there is like transportation, taxes, there's some big issues going on in that state. In New Jersey, there are people really upset with Governor Corzine.
So there are other reasons that I think sort of override President Obama and how people feel about President Obama.
Tavis: President Obama, to your point now, Adam, went to New Jersey two or three times to campaign -
Nagourney: That's correct, yes.
Tavis: - campaign for Jon Corzine. What do we read into that?
Nagourney: Two things. One is the fact that he went there meant that I think that he thought he had a pretty good chance of winning. Second of all, the White House was certainly aware they did not want to be in a situation where they lost three races last night. We'll come back to it, I assume, but there's that third upstate New York congressional race.
But from a political point of view, it means that the president invested some of his political capital into winning this race in New Jersey, and Governor Corzine lost by a couple of points. Part of that is sort of the - how much does that matter? Some of it is just people like me and people watching and sort of like buzzing about it and just sort of chattering around in circles, but here's the real-life possible impact here - President Obama, over the next month and a half - in fact, over the next six months - is going to be going to Congress and he's going to be asking Democrats to cast tough votes on issues like climate control and also on healthcare, and he's probably lost a little bit of clout with them when he goes to, say, moderate members who are already worried about casting votes on some of these things and says, "Well, I'm going to help you by campaigning for you."
Because they're going to say, "Well, you didn't do much good for Corzine," so there is a legitimate political impact there in terms of him getting stuff through on the Hill.
Tavis: Couple other races. We'll stay with New Jersey first. So Jon Corzine, as we know, is a multi-multi-millionaire, spent a bunch of his own money. He loses by a few points, never mind all the money that he spent. Michael Bloomberg spent $100 million in New York City.
You put the two of these guys together, just over the past few years or so, combined in New Jersey and New York, two states right next door to each other, Corzine and Bloomberg have spent over $400 million of their own money for races in New Jersey and New York.
Again, Corzine still loses by a few points, Bloomberg wins by a whole lot less than the polls or the newspapers and others in New York thought he was going to win by. Talk to me about money and political.
Nagourney: It's an interesting question. Money only gets you so far. Money can buy you ads; money can get you the best staff. Let's take Corzine first. If you're a candidate that has fundamental problems with the electorate, for whatever reason, whether it's fairly or not - remember, he never came over, I don't think, 40 or 43 percent - he could only go so far.
Money will get you attention, but eventually people have to vote on who you are. The case for Bloomberg in New York, people generally think he's done a really good job, but I think the third term thing was really a problem for him, and I think that he really needed to - and he was running against a candidate who wasn't particularly strong, and I think that he really felt and probably - we can argue whether this is right morally or not - but he really felt that in order for him to win he had to spend a lot of money.
I believe that he was probably caught by surprise as many other people about how close it turned out to be and is probably now thinking, well, he's glad he spent the $100 million. He obviously has that kind of money, too, so he doesn't have to think about it. (Laughter) Hey, like to me that would, like, that would be a lot of money, but I'm weird.
Tavis: Yeah, to me and to you.
Nagourney: You too, yeah. (Laughter) But can I say one thing about Bloomberg, because I covered him for a long time - he's a very directed guy. He's a business guy. He's someone who spends money to get stuff done, and he doesn't waste money. I think that he sat there and he thought if I want to be mayor again I'm going to have to spend money, and I'll spend what it takes to win. That's just the way he is.
Tavis: Two other quick questions before I let you go here. You mentioned earlier this race in upstate New York. I'll let you explain it, you can do it quicker than I can, and what your read is given who won last night.
Nagourney: I'll tell you something - that's the smallest of all the races we've been talking about. That might be, politically, the most significant. Quickly, what happened there - there was an open seat up there, it's a Republican district, it's way upstate New York. The Republicans nominated a candidate there, the candidate was a woman who supports abortion rights, gay rights, supported the president's fiscal - economic stimulus package.
The conservative party came in there, they were upset, they endorsed their own candidate in there, so you had a three-way race. Then you had some of the biggest conservative figures in the country and grassroots groups come in and campaign on behalf of this conservative candidate. Sarah Palin went in there; Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, went in there; Club for Growth.
On Saturday, I think, the Republican candidate announced that she was suspending her campaign because she said she can't beat all this money and all this conservative support for the other candidate. So the general assumption was well, okay, it's a Republican district, the conservative candidate has people really juiced up for him, so apparently he's going to win, right?
Well, he didn't. He lost last night, and I think what's significant about that was that it shows that the Republican party has to deal with the split in the party about how do you win elections - do you win it by embracing conservative precepts and go back far to the right, or do you win it by trying to support moderate candidates who might appeal to a broader swath of voters? They're going to have to work that over the next couple of years.
Tavis: Finally, we'll come back to this many times next year, but President Obama did everything he could to help Jon Corzine win in New Jersey, but we know that the White House has sent messages to the governor in New York, the only African American governor - well, there's Duval Patrick in Massachusetts - but David Paterson, the African American governor in New York, the White House has sent messages to him that they want him to get out of the race and not run for reelection, not stand for election next year.
How does Corzine losing with the president's support complicate what happens in the Paterson race in New York next year?
Nagourney: My sense with the Paterson race is Paterson is an unusual kind of politician. I think he's going to do what he wants to do. I think in a normal political situation the fact that the president is sort of sending signals that he wants you out of the race means you should get out of the race because you'll have trouble raising money, you're going to have trouble getting support.
I'm not sure what's going to happen in this case. I think what you want to do is watch polls and see whether or not Paterson thinks he has a chance to win. Clearly, as you're suggesting, it diminishes the president's authority to some extent. But as it was, Paterson wasn't listening to him anyway, so.
Tavis: Yeah. (Laughter)
Nagourney: Just say it.
Tavis: There you go, and you said it correctly. We will follow that race with Governor Paterson next year as we followed the ones last night. Adam, you do great work in the "Times" every day.
Nagourney: I appreciate it, sir, thank you.
Tavis: I'm always honored to have you on the program.
Nagourney: Thank you, sir.
Tavis: Thank you, sir.
Nagourney: Take care.
Back to November 4, 2009