WSJ What’s News - Trump Backs Cuomo in New York Mayoral Race

Episode Date: November 4, 2025

A.M. Edition for Nov. 4. It is election day with voters heading to the polls in states including New York, Virginia and New Jersey. WSJ’s John McCormick says that although Democrats are expected to win all three races, it will not necessarily ease the divided party’s troubles. Plus, WSJ’s Gavin Bade says there is a lot at stake for President Trump as his tariffs are set to go before the Supreme Court. And two major investors reject Elon Musk’s $1 trillion pay deal. Caitlin McCabe hosts. Sign up for the WSJ’s free What’s News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is brought to you by Dinotrace, the leader in AI-powered observability, with analytics, automation, and next-level intelligence on one unified platform. DynaTrace delivers the visibility and real-time insights you need to deliver better, more secure software, successful AI initiatives, and innovation at the speed of business. Turn data into decisions that drive your business forward with AI-powered observability where it counts. Learn more at dinatrace.com slash WSJ. That's www.d-d-D-Y-N-T-R-A-C-E dot com slash WSJ. voters head to the polls today with crucial elections in New York, Virginia, and New Jersey.

Plus, we unpack what a possible win by Zoran Mamdani in New York City could mean for the future of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is in the wilderness here, which is a hard place to be. And, you know, they're hoping to get a couple wins here, which could give them a little bit of momentum. And how a string of alleged frauds by corporate borrowers. is spurring a reckoning across Wall Street. It's Tuesday, November 4th. I'm Caitlin McCabe for the Wall Street Journal, and here is the AM edition of What's News. The top headlines and business stories moving your world today. Now it's election day in states including New York, New Jersey, and Virginia, as the first major votes following President Trump's election get underway. In the

governor races, two centrist Democrats are leading the polls, although Mikey, Cheryl is expected to face a tight race against Republican Jack Chittarelli in New Jersey. New York's mayoral election looks increasingly like a shoe-in for progressive Democrat Zoran Mamdani, although Trump late yesterday gave his backing to former governor Andrew Cuomo and threatened to cut federal funding for the city and send the National Guard to New York if Mamdani won. Both candidates had this response. We need a mayor who can stand up to Donald Trump, who can get the funding. that New York deserves, who can make sure the National Guard does not come to New York,

because we don't need the National Guard, and I can stand up to Trump. We know and have known for months that Donald Trump would favor Andrew Cuomo as the mayor. They share the same donors. They share the same small vision. They share the same sense of impunity. And although Democrats are expected to win all three. elections today, a lot is at stake for a party facing its biggest brand crisis in over 30 years. As national politics reporter John McCormick writes, the results are also likely to deliver a

muddled answer on a big question gripping the party. Should Democrats be more moderate or progressive if they want to win next year's midterm elections and beyond? John, this is a debate that Democrats have had for quite some time, but feels like it's taken on. new urgency this year. How divided is the party on this? Well, fairly divided. I mean, the Democratic Party is in the wilderness here, which is a hard place to be. And, you know, they're hoping to get a couple wins here, which could give them a little bit of momentum after the elections on Tuesday. But there is this fundamental question. And it's a very strong debate within the party. Progressives like Bernie Sanders and AOC in New York think the party should be more progressive,

should talk about issues that it didn't talk about very much in 2020. election. And then there's moderates who say, you know, we need to get back to sort of where the party was when Bill Clinton was president or even Barack Obama was president and make sure that we're not doing things to alienate independent voters. And so let's dive into the race that I think everyone is watching the New York City mayoral election. If Mamdani wins, how will this be interpreted by both parties? So he is a really important character in Tuesday's elections and And he has fascinated both the progressive left and conservatives for very different reasons. The progressives feel like he is the candidate of the future, that if more members of the

party addressed affordability, that the party could have more success. But conservatives are already very much gearing up to sort of make him the poster child for the midterm campaigns. They're going to suggest that if he gets elected, that the Democratic Party has moved to the far left, very close to socialism, perhaps into socialism. And he's going to be featured in a lot of attack ads in the midterm campaigns where Republicans are going to try to associate him with all the other Democrats. And so, John, what is the thinking around whether Mamdani's strategy will work in more politically mixed states or swing states? You have one interesting quote here from former Democratic representative, Steve Israel, who noted it's easier for a progressive to win in Brooklyn, New York than it is in Brooklyn, Iowa.

Yeah, no, and that's sort of the sentiment among moderate. Democrats who are really, again, concerned about how he's going to be used against other Democrats as they run in the midterms. And he may also sort of motivate progressives to nominate or push to challenge incumbents. There may be some moderate Democrats out there who, you know, represent swing districts. And they may find progressive challengers early next year in the primary season. And that could drain party resources. And there's just a really strong debate within the party about these ideological differences that we've talked about, but also generational differences. There's just a lot of old guard in the Democratic Party, and the progressive left

feels it's time for those folks to be moved on out to pasture. But even if that's the case, we certainly have a number of more centrist Democrats running in some pretty pivotal elections today. Can you walk us through some of the races that you're keeping an eye on outside of New York? Yeah. So the two, they're getting the most attention are the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. The New Jersey race is expected to be closer. The polls have definitely tightened in the final weeks of that campaign. In Virginia, it is Abigail Spanberger. She's a former congresswoman and past CIA intelligence officer. And in New Jersey, it's representative Mickey Sherrill. And she's a former Navy helicopter pilot. So they both have these national security credentials. The New Jersey race is expected to be closer. The polls have definitely tightened in the final weeks of that campaign. So, John, throughout this conversation, we've been talking a lot about what strategists, politicians, former politicians are saying about what all this means for the future of the Democratic Party.

But how are just everyday voters feeling about this divide right now? Yeah, well, within the Democratic Party, they're not feeling very good. There was a Pew Research Center survey released late last week that found two-thirds, of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say their party makes them feel frustrated. And that was far higher than the roughly half who said that in 2021 and 2019 in the same survey. And for comparison, just 40 percent of Republicans say that of the GOP. So there's a lot of dissatisfaction even within the Democratic Party. Independent voters are not looking favorably sort of on either party right now. And members of Congress have especially low approval ratings right now as well. So that's

that's all going to be factored into the mood of the electorate as we head into the midterms in 2026. Well, John, it sounds like it's going to be a pretty busy day for you today. Thanks so much for joining us. Thank you. Coming up, the rest of the day's news, including a Supreme Court case on Trump's tariffs and how two major investors are voting against Elon Musk's trillion dollar pay package. Those stories and more after the break. You know what's better than the one big thing? Two big things. Exactly. The new iPhone 17 Pro on TELUS's five-year rate plan price lock.

Yep, it's the most powerful iPhone ever, plus more peace of mind with your bill over five years. This is big. Get the new iPhone 17 Pro at tellus.com slash iPhone 17 pro on select plans. Conditions and exclusions apply. Today's elections aren't the only big outcomes hanging in the balance. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over President Trump's decision to impose sweeping global tariffs. The court isn't expected to rule for several weeks or months, but there's a lot at stake. Already, the U.S. government has collected $90 billion from tariffs through August, and much more is expected, with the White House telling court it expects to collect up to one trillion dollars by next June. But as DC reporter Gavin Bade

explains, it's also high stakes for Trump himself, with the justices weighing broad questions about presidential authority. It's really 50-50 on how the high court is going to rule on this. Typically, this Supreme Court and lower courts as well are very deferential to presidential emergency powers. They say when the chief executive designate something as an emergency, whether economic or otherwise, they typically give pretty wide latitude to the president to act how they want in those scenarios. The thing is, is that the other side would say in this case is this is really a stretch of the president's emergency authority under this law. The AEPA law does not specifically mention tariffs. It mentions being able to regulate the economy. But if you stretch that to also mean

the power to impose tariffs or taxes, that really expands the president's authority far beyond what the plaintiffs in this case would say is the original intent of Congress in promulgating this law. So it is a big experiment in executive authority. Three sets of tariffs are in play, which make up the vast majority of tariff revenue. That includes the administration's baseline 10% tariffs on virtually all countries, the steeper tariffs on countries the White House considers bad trade actors, and the additional fentanyl levies on China, Mexico, and Canada. Gavin says it's not entirely clear what will happen to the money collected if the court rules the tariffs illegal.

But one thing is for certain the administration has contingency plans. If the Treasury is made to refund that, officials there have said that this could lead to an unraveling of the economic situation in the U.S. We've never really had to refund government levies to this scale before, and I think it would be a big experiment into how the Treasury Department would actually do that. even if that happens, I don't think you'll see companies immediately lowering their prices because they no longer have tariff pressure. Why? Because of those contingency plans. Trump's team has already said that they will come back with other tariff authorities if these are struck down. So I think for them, if they don't succeed the first time, they will certainly try, try again. That doesn't mean that this case is any less important, but it just means that we're in for this

roller coaster for the years to come. A string of loan losses is ringing alarm bells across Wall Street. In response, lenders are increasing due diligence and demanding more financial data from companies to avoid future blowups. Journal Finance editor Alex Brangos says while this has left some on Wall Street shaken, the alleged recent frauds have been more of a warning shot. Well, they're significant, especially for the investors who lent money to these companies. There's some pretty major bankruptcies and losses.

But for the wider market, it's caused a lot of people on Wall Street, including the big banks and investors, to kind of get together and say, maybe we've gotten a little too easy with how we lend money and we need to kind of tighten the screws on people who borrow and make sure that they're doing what they say they're doing. Alex added that despite this overall investor sentiment remains positive. Credit markets are still very much open for business. This is not like 2008 or really 2007 when the housing market started to create. trader and credit markets just shut down. Companies couldn't go out and borrow. Whereas right now, they're very much open. And if you're a kind of a regular business and things are fine. So so far, investors are saying, look, there's still a lot of safe companies that they want to lend money to, and they're continuing to do that. We're seeing that in the market. So right now, it's more of a

warning sign than a stoplight. And Tesla stock is down pre-market after two major investors indicated they would vote down Elon Musk's $1 trillion pay package. Shareholders are meeting Thursday to discuss the controversial payout with Norway Sovereign Wealth Fund saying it was concerned about the total size of the award. The California Public Employees Retirement System, the largest public pension fund in the U.S., echoed that sentiment, adding that the package would further concentrate power in a single shareholder. And that's it for What's News for this Tuesday morning. Heads up, we've got a special bonus episode coming for you later today. In the latest What's News in earnings, we'll look at the big drug makers, the heated competition over weight loss treatments, and how companies are dealing with the Trump administration on drug pricing and tariffs. That'll be in the feed around midday, and we'll have the PM What's News after that.

Today's show is produced by Kate Bullivant. Our supervising producer was Sandra Kilhoff, and I'm Caitlin McCabe for the Wall Street Journal. We'll be back tonight with the new show. Until then, thanks for listening. You know, I'm sorry. You know,