The Opinions - There Is Hope for Democrats. Look to Kansas.

Episode Date: July 22, 2025

David Leonhardt, an editorial director for Opinion, talks to the Opinion correspondent Michelle Cottle about her recent reporting trip to Kansas. Cottle argues that Democrats should look to moderate governors like Laura Kelly of Kansas for a playbook.Thoughts? Email us at [e-mail]. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is The Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it. I'm David Leonhard, an editorial director in New York Times Opinion. Every week, I'm having conversations to help shape our editorial board's opinions. Democrats are spending a lot of time these days, agonizing about what the future of their party should look like. Today, we're going to talk about one potential answer. The party's current crop of governors. politicians who have a proven ability to win elections,

including some really tough elections, and to govern as well. My colleague Michelle Cottle recently traveled to Kansas to talk with one of the country's most impressive governors, Laura Kelly, a moderate Democrat in her second term. Kansas is so Republican that it hasn't elected a Democratic senator since 1932. It's so Republican that there is a famous book, What's the Matter with Kansas,

lamenting the failure. of Democrats there. Yet Governor Kelly is now in her second term, and Michelle and I are going to talk about what lessons she offers for her party. Michelle, thanks for being here. David, it is absolute pleasure. So first off, can you just introduce Governor Laura Kelly to us?

Okay, so Laura Kelly has been very successful in navigating very tough issues. When she was elected, Kansas was in a terrible, financial state. Her conservative predecessor had basically run it into the ground with tax cuts. Sam Brownback. Sam Brownback, the Brownback experiment of supply-side tax slashing. And she was elected in 2018 basically on a promise to put stability back in the government. And that is basically what she has said about doing. And the state has won, you know, accolades, awards for its turnaround. She has brought the funding back for schools, capital investment has flowed in, jobs, that sort of thing.

But she remains very under the radar. Almost no one outside of Kansas talks about her, which just for me is this perplexing issue that's kind of broader than anyone governor, which is that you have all of the focus within the Democratic Party is so frequently on its Washington characters, but it's got this great crop of governors out in the states. And Kelly is a model of a moderate Democrat who has managed to thrive in a very conservative state despite what's been going on national. And I think we should acknowledge she's not going to run for president. She's 75 years old. She doesn't have any interest. And so she herself is not the future of the party, but she seems important because there are lessons that are bigger than her there. And what's interesting to me is Sam Brownback is not the

first Republican governor to mismanage his state. And yet, in many of those other Republican states, the Democratic brand is just too toxic for a Democrat to win election. And Laura Kelly overcame that. And so I want to talk about exactly how she did that, because that is relevant to this question of how can the rest of the party try to repair a brand that really is in much of the country really, really bad. I mean, the Democratic Party is still less popular than the Republican Party when you go to voters. So I want to play an ad from her re-election campaign in 2022. Here it is. I'm back. Here in the middle of this road. Last time I told you what we've already accomplished by governing from the middle. And I should say that that ad shows her

standing literally in the middle of a road. We'll attract even more new businesses. like the major Panasonic plant that's coming to Kansas. We'll always fully fund our schools and we'll keep cutting taxes for families and seniors. And I'll get it done by working with both sides. I think you know I've always been pretty middle of the road and I always will be. Can you break that add down for us?

Why do you think it was effective and how did it tap into her larger campaign? So her image in Kansas has, and she's really leaned into the idea that she's not a partisan figure, I mean, she grew up Republican. She is a moderate Democrat. I talked to one of the pollsters who did her campaign, who did focus groups, and the voters would tell the pollster that, you know, if she were in California, she'd be a Republican.

But here in Kansas, she is a Democrat. And they just see her as very Kansas is how they put it. She has values in terms of social issues that would not fit in the Republican Party. You know, she's pro-choice, pro-LGBQ rights. But she is not a partisan bomb thrower, and she prides herself on a pragmatic approach. So she campaigned on issues, mostly kitchen table bread and butter issues,

because at the time when she was first running, the whole thing was they needed to save the state from the Brownback experiment. But then she dug in, delivered on a lot of her promises and her ideas, and then by 2022, had enough of a record as common sense, moderate, centrist, which appeals to Kansas's idea of itself.

And so when it came time for reelect, you know, they were willing to give her another four. So I want to break this out into two sets of issues. I want to start with the kitchen table issues that you just talked about. And I think that there is a pattern here of Democrats being able to do better, when they can focus on economic issues.

Do you think that's fair to say that much of her success is because she has persuaded Kansans, that she is a responsible economic steward? Absolutely. And she made this clear when we were talking. She's like, I didn't run on issues that send people to their corners. I largely ran on issues that were bringing everybody together. Now, that doesn't mean that she doesn't have a take

and values on social issues and more hot-button issues. It's just that wasn't what she was focusing on. In office, she obviously had to deal with them. For instance, her re-elect year in 2022 was the same year that Kansas was going through that major abortion ballot initiative about whether or not to maintain access in its constitution.

And she was very delicate with it. Like she did not, you know, it was a very touchy subject for Kansas, because it's such a conservative state, so she's very kind of aware of what her constituency is. When I see what she did in Kansas, I actually see three lessons,

and I want to bounce them off for you to see if you agree. So one, she didn't emphasize social issues. She didn't run very many ads on abortion, even when in other states it was a centerpiece of the campaign. Two, she didn't moderate on everything. I mean, I'm not aware of her saying anything

that kind of tilts to the right on abortion. Tell me if I'm wrong. Did she ever say, against late stage abortions or anything like that? No, no, she has not moved to accommodate these. And same thing on trans rights. She has vetoed a lot of bills that have come through the ledge aiming to take away certain rights or protections

for the transgender community. And she has consistently held a line on that. It's just, you know, in Kansas, you're going to get overridden. But anyway, she does not moderate. It's just that that's not what she focuses on. That's striking because a lot of other Democrats who've taken the people. position, in particular on trans rights, have just been bombarded with Republican commercials

portraying them as out of touch. And so how has Kelly managed to survive and thrive, even though I presume Republicans have been lambasting her positions on both trans and abortion issues? So I think part of it is that she understands the dynamics of the politics in her state, so she can veto a bill, and it's going to get overridden, and it's going to go through. So she takes her stand, but the Republicans don't have a lot to beat her up on because it's still going through. And if you talk to, so I talk to the Republican State House Speaker about her and how her image compares to how she really operates. And they get very frustrated because she's got this very nonpartisan, non-political grandma image. And he's like, no, she's viciously, viciously shrewd with her.

politics. And, you know, she knows when to veto a bill, when to let it pass without her signature. And he also pointed that on issues that she cares about. She really digs in and plays hardball. But in a lot of cases, it's Kansas. She can only do so much. And if it's an issue that is not kind of overwhelmingly popular within the state, it's probably not going to, probably not going to pass. Boy, if Democrats need one thing, I think it might be more viciously shrewd politicians who understand how to win. Right. I'm all for it. So now we come to the third point, which is the point that I think is less comfortable for a lot of progressive Democrats, which is Laura Kelly, like the vast majority, maybe even all successful Democrats in tough places, did moderate on some social issues. So she banned sanctuary city.

She started a pack that actually helps elect some moderate Republicans, which would be anathema to many other Democrats. And I'm really struck by that because I think what many Democrats wish to be true is that they can keep all their positions on social issues that are liberal and just constantly change the subject to economics. And I don't think there's much of a record of that working. I think Kelly is much more typical of the Democrats who've won, which is she finds some highly salient ways to send a signal to voters. I'm not as liberal as those elite. liberals that you think of the Democratic Party as. And I see that again and again. And I wonder if you think those three things are fair. She doesn't emphasize social issues. She sticks to her guns on some issues, but there are at least a couple of issues in which she clearly is to the center of the

National Democratic Party. Oh, absolutely. And she looks at it in terms of what is good for the state a lot of the times. So obviously what she needs to do in Kansas is not the same thing as what Westmore needs to do in Maryland. For instance, during the COVID pandemic, there was some controversy because she worked to keep the meatpacking plants open at a time when people were like freaking out about this. But it was important to the state. She worked with the Trump administration on that. And now it's considered a good thing that she did that. So I think the difference with governors like her is that they have, they are executives, they are in charge of a state, they have more wiggle room to do things that break with party orthodoxy than if you are a legislator on the national

team in Congress. That's a really interesting point because I think that Democratic legislators in Washington have less room to break with the party, in part because the party gives them less room. When you look at the Republican Party, it's got Susan Collins, it's got Lisa Murkowski. strangely, Republicans actually seem to have gotten more comfortable with this idea of having a big tent party with moderate members of Congress who are going to break with the party on some big issues, but who couldn't have their seats otherwise. And I'm really struck that we basically no longer have any Democratic senators who would describe themselves as pro-life, which really could help Democrats win in a state like Louisiana, for example. And to me, one of the lessons here of Laura Kelly and of others is that Democrats have created a little bit too much of a litmus test. And so that if you are with the Democrats on 70 or 80 or even 90 percent of issues, it is very uncomfortable for you to be a member of Congress because activists come after you. It's hard to raise money.

And as a result, it just becomes really hard for Democrats to have in the Senate in particular more people like Laura Kelly. Well, you can just look at Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, who both left. They were constantly abused. Now, I do want to say that of late, if you're Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins, you'll take a little bit of abuse from the MAGA folks, but they've been there long enough and they're tough enough that they've been holding the line. But I take your point that it does at least seem like right. now that there are fewer litmus tests within the Republican Party on policy, although that's in part because the only litmus test that matters in the Republican Party is whether or not you are licking Trump's boots sufficiently. Yes, which is deeply disturbing. So troubling. I mean, the Joe Manchin example is the perfect example, because if you say Joe Manchin to an average Democrat who's highly engaged in politics, the answer is probably going to be some sort of sour face in response to it. But actually, Joe Manchin was a Democratic hero. Without him, huge amounts of progressive legislation would never get passed because he provided the vote from West Virginia.

West Virginia. Which is a lot like Kansas in terms of its partisan. Oh, it's even more aggressive in its MAGA-ishness. One more thing on Laura Kelly, and then we'll broaden it out. I think the word authenticity is just so important. I mean, people have pointed this out. David Axelrod, maybe most famously, that voters can sniff out in authenticity more quickly than, any other weakness in a candidate. And so Kelly comes off as an authentic person who has strongly

held beliefs, for example, on abortion rights. But that doesn't necessarily mean that she then has every progressive belief down the line. Most human beings don't neatly fit into either a conservative or progressive worldview. They're more interesting and complicated than that. And if the Democratic Party can find more politicians who may say to their vote is, hey, this is a really strong view of mine. I'm not going to change it. I respect your view. But I'm with you on these other things, and I think my own party is wrong. That seems to me to be a pretty promising recipe. Yeah, and this is why I've always had a bias for governors because they do have a lot more wiggle room, in part because people understand that states are different. Also, if you're a governor,

you are the last word in that state. You can't blame it on the team. And so I think with legislative teams, people get flattened out because they have to tow the party line. And increasingly in Congress, legislating is not the name of the game. They get vanishingly little done so much as that you're just a partisan warrior. I do think leaders in the Democratic Party and funders of the Democratic Party could do some things to change that situation and to make it clear that they actually want to find more heterodox candidates who have a better chance to win now in the 20-plus states where Democrats basically never have a chance to win a Senate race. Yeah, I mean, a lot of it always goes back to the funding.

You know, what are funders excited about? I had talked to Congressman Jason Crowe back a few months ago because he's one of the people in charge of recruiting for the party. He, you know, he's from Colorado, and he's from a fairly, what used to be a swing district in Colorado around Aurora that's gotten bluer. but he knows that you can't have a cookie cutter approach, and he is kind of pushing for expanding kind of the model for who you recruit. Well, if we're going to be talking about lessons for the Democratic Party,

we have to talk about Zoran Mandani, the 33-year-old Democratic nominee for mayor in New York who ran this incredibly impressive campaign. And I'm curious how you think about him and Kelly at the same time. I see some similarities and some huge differences. Yeah, and I think obviously we've talked about authenticity. And if you watch Mondani, he's just electric, which Kelly is not. But they are authentically of their place.

So he ran this campaign with a lot of energy. He went viral. I mean, obviously, perhaps the biggest lesson from this is it's great to run against a presumed frontrunner like Andrew Cuomo, who just ran a wretched campaign and was a flawed candidate and kind of a disaster. Yes. But then beyond that, you know, Mom Dani got out there. He talked to voters. They got this good ground game going.

He was kind of brilliant on social media, which the younger generation of politicians are going to be better at this. On policies, he had a coherent argument, affordability. We're going to do this. Also, one of the policy things, I think, that Democrats are going to need to grapple with going forward is his criticism of Israel. I do believe that the party's younger generation of voters, for them, this is going to be a very different kind of position than what the party has been dealing with with older voters. But I think that that's less applicable nationwide than just how he ran a great campaign. He didn't take anything for granted and just kind of

caught everybody by surprise. I agree with that, and I think there are some lessons for other Democrats there. Political talent matters, knowing how to operate on TikTok and Instagram as opposed to old-fashioned TV

matters a lot. And Mamdani really did focus on kitchen table issues in New York. I still think some people are making a mistake, which is Zoran Mandani has talked about defunding the police. Yes, he walked away from that position,

much as Kamala Harris tried to walk away from her pretty far-left positions from 2019. It didn't work when Republicans ran ads. Mamdani describes himself as a socialist. There is no one like him who wins in purple places, who wins in the places where the Democratic Party has to win in order to win elections. There's no one. There aren't candidates who talk about defunding the police.

There aren't candidates who are pro-sanctuary city. There aren't candidates who describe themselves as socialist. And so Mamdani is very talented, and I think a bunch of the forms that he used, and his own personal talent are lessons there. And the Democrats need generational change. But the notion that Democrats can win in a place like Ohio or Georgia or Arizona,

let alone Kansas, with a candidate who has Mom Dani's beliefs and positions, as opposed to a candidate who has Laura Kelly's beliefs and positions, just strikes me as a view wholly lacking evidence to support it. Well, look, this reminds me a lot of back when AOC came out of nowhere and dethroned Joe Crowley. who was a big deal and had been a big deal in the house, but had gotten entitled and lazy in his campaigning

and everybody was very excited about this new progressive energy. But if you drop AOC in Ohio or Michigan or North Carolina, it's a completely different thing. Look, New York politics is its own thing. And there are limited applications outside of New York in terms of kind of your positions. So you didn't talk only about Laura Kelly in your piece. you talk generally about this idea of governors.

So let's end by talking about some of the other governors who are younger than 75. My guess is the Democratic Party would rather not nominate someone in their 70s or 80s after their recent experience. I kind of put them into two categories. There are a bunch of blue state governors who are getting a lot of attention.

Gavin Newsom in California, J.B. Pritzker in Illinois, Westmore in Maryland. And I think some of them have real political talents. I would put Wes Moore as the most likely serious presidential candidate of those three. But I still think that they are less likely to be able to emerge and win a presidential election than the governors who have a proven record of actually winning in the places that you need to win to win a presidential election. That's Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan. It's Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania.

It's Andy Bashir in Kentucky. Democrats aren't going to win Kentucky, but Andy Bashir has won the kind of voters that Democrats have to win. When you look at the crop of plausible 2028 candidates, who do you think are the ones that have the most promise as potential presidential candidates? Oh, that's a tough one. I mean, so I'm a little bit like you in that I do break them down into categories. And I put Newsom in kind of a category by himself because he's so aggressive and it's California. And he's not even known as a governor. He's pitched himself as a national foil to Trump. So that's his kind of of completely different. But I, you know, I'm interested to see how Josh Stein does in North Carolina.

I'm interested in how Shapiro does going forward. My fear with Whitmer is that she's missed her moment for the party. And then you also have some coming up. Like, I am very interested to see how Abigail Spanberger does in Virginia if she's going to be kind of an interesting model. I don't think she will have been in office nearly enough to be a candidate in 2028. But we're talking about going forward, you know, models going forward. So I think there's a good farm team, so to speak, with governors. I think after the midterms, it'll clarify as to kind of what people are looking for and who's got the best shot. But I'm very optimistic. As the parties doom and gloom about its national reputation and especially as congressional leaders, I take that. That's very real.

That's very awful. But their governors are actually. actually something to be, you know, very optimistic about. Yeah. And a whole bunch of them, we've been talking politics, but a whole bunch of them and put it in place some really interesting policies as well. Absolutely. And would be able to run on those policies. And they've got some charisma. It's one of these things where you could just go through the list and talk about the glory of the farm team, whereas the Washington situation is much grimmer. I mean, one thing, senators have that long voting history with their team. It's very complicated. There's a lot to attack them on. Senators learn to be boring and, you know, talk forever to the C-SPAN cameras,

and they just get too compromised in Washington. And again, they're not executives. And the buck doesn't stop with them. So they, it's very different. Well, you heard it here. Michelle Cottle, you've been traveling around the country and your advice to people interested in politics is keep your eye on the governors. Love those governors. Thank you, Michelle. Thanks, Dave. If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Veshaka, Christina Samuelski, and Jillian Weinberger.

It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzik. Engineering, mixing, and original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabro, and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amon Sahota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris Audience Strategy by Shannon Busta

and Christina Samuelski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.