Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
All Three Mamdani-Backed Candidates Win New York Primaries In Clean Sweep; "Big A.I.'s No. 1 Enemy" Loses High-Stakes House Race; Senate Votes To Block Trump From Resuming Iran War. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired June 23, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Good evening, everyone. I'm Laura Coates. It is a busy primary night in America with a big message from Zohran Mamdani to the rest of the Democratic Party. The New York City mayor put his name behind three House candidates, and we can now project all three will win. That's a clean sweep.
We can start here. Mamdani-backed Brad Lander. He will beat incumbent Congressman Dan Goldman in New York's 10th congressional district. The race was called while Lander was being interviewed live on CNN.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRAD LANDER, CANDIDATE FOR U.S. HOUSE IN NEW YORK: I think it says people want fighters. They want people who reject corporate PAC money from private equity, Wall Street and crypto and AIPAC. It wants people who center the real felt needs of working families. I do think it says Democratic voters want to reset the U.S. relationship with Israel. They don't want a foreign policy that compromises on anyone's humanity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Now, in the second race, a Democratic socialist endorsed by Mamdani, Claire Valdez, will defeat Brooklyn Borough president, Antonio Reynoso, in New York's 7th district. It was an open seat. But the congressman -- the retiring congresswoman had backed Reynoso.
And to complete the hat trick, Darializa Avila Chevalier will defeat five-term incumbent congressman, Adriano Espaillat. She's another Democratic socialist backed by Mamdani. Espaillat is one of New York's most prominent Latino Democrats and the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Joining me tonight, Carine Hajjar, Washington Post editorial board member and a fellow at the Steamboat Institute, Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett, CNN political analyst and former Biden White House communications director, Kate Bedingfield, and Tiffany Smiley, founder of Endeavor PAC and a former Republican Senate candidate in Washington. What a night. I want to talk about all of it. Let's begin with you, Kate, because, I mean, this is a sweep of candidates that Mamdani endorsed and two actually took out incumbents. What is that telling you about the state of play for Democrats with an eye towards midterms?
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER BIDEN WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Yes. Well, like Mamdani is certainly in his honeymoon period. You have to give him credit. I certainly give him credit for a very effective start to his mayorship. He really has energized voters. And, clearly, as they were looking toward their votes tonight, they were looking at who they -- who he was pointing to. So, I think no question, this is a statement of his strength in New York City.
Certainly, also, a continued expression of the sense that people are tired of the status quo, and I think you've seen that certainly in other races. Now, it hasn't necessarily materialized in other races in the form of Democratic socialist candidates winning, but you've certainly seen voters say that they're frustrated with the status quo, that they want to see change, and I think, you know, Mamdani backing these candidates who prevailed tonight indicates that.
Now, the one now the thing I will say, though, is it's important also not to forget New York City, of course, one of the most liberal jurisdictions in the entire country, if you look out at places like New Jersey and Virginia in 2025 where you had candidates also delivering a very effective anti-status quo message but doing it from kind of a much more moderate lane and those candidates' triumph. So, I think I would caution a little bit reading too much beyond the borders of New York City because it is -- it is a uniquely liberal place.
COATES: I mean, is it instructive? I mean, obviously, Mamdani, I look at him as a very interesting person in the sense that Republicans were eager to run against him. They wanted a Democratic socialism message. They thought it would be very detrimental for his success as a candidate, let alone as an incumbent.
And then you have the president of the United States, who didn't bad mouth them, seems to get along with them. And now, he is at least a progressive kingmaker of sorts. If you're a Republican strategist thinking about this and wondering how you gauge this, is it instructive to you? What do you think?
TIFFANY SMILEY, FOUNDER OF ENDEAVOR PAC, FORMER REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE IN WASHINGTON: Yes. I mean, I think it's fascinating. I've been saying for a long time who is the leader of the Democrat Party. Perhaps it's Mamdani. He clearly looks like the kingmaker in this. And it's moving forward.
You know, a lot of these candidates are also playing to people's emotions. They're talking about policies that I don't believe they will be able to deliver on. Not only that.
[23:05:00]
They talk about no deportations under like you can be an illegal criminal murderer. No deportations. But that's not just --
COATES: Well, they didn't say that extreme. They did talk about their boundaries to it, right? SMILEY: That's pretty extreme. And when you look at it, though, that's not just to these socialist candidates. Talarico in Texas says he wants to put a welcome mat at the border. Platner wants to abolish ICE and law enforcement as well. So, perhaps --
SAWYER HACKETT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, CONTENT CREATOR: And a lock in the door.
SMILEY: -- perhaps this is the new Democrat Party.
COATES: What did you say? Hold on.
HACKETT: And a lock on the door. That's the full quote from Talarico. It is not just a welcome mat. It was and a lock on the door. It was the finish -- the end of that quote was that we're going to put a lock on the door and a welcome mat on the front.
COATES: And the importance of that is that the boundaries in which this is being talked about in terms of there are limitations to the policies that are being talked about by Republicans. HACKETT: Right. And as Kate was alluding to, I mean, this is New York. This is a bastion of liberal, you know, progressive politics. And, of course, you know, Mayor Mamdani, who's riding this kind of tsunami of popularity right now, is going to be able to play kingmaker.
And what I like about what he's doing is that he's spending that political capital that he's earning. He's not banking it for his own kind of political aspirations. He's out there saying, I want to help shape the future of the Democratic Party, at least in New York City, at a time when I think a lot of rank and file Democratic voters are looking for a new direction for the party.
COATES: Van Jones -- I want to hear your point, too, on this. Van Jones, our colleague, had a pretty tough assessment of this night for establishment Democrats, to your larger point. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's a battle between the establishment and this insurgency. And the roof is collapsing on the Democratic Party establishment tonight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, when you hear that and think about obviously the rejection in and, again, New York City is not every city in this country although, again, judging by the number of Knicks fans, it was everywhere, all over the country. But let's talk about election night there for those who could vote there. I mean, you've got this sort of damning assessment of what it's like to be an incumbent in the rejection. So, what did Democrats do looking forward? Actually, any party, an incumbent status. CARINE HAJJAR, EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER AT WASHINGTON POST, FELLOW AT STEAMBOAT INSTITUTE: Well, let's be honest. The roof has been collapsing on the Democratic establishment. They need a new vision, and they don't have a vision. And so, you have more radical candidates come in and fill it and, you know, have their own ideology, fill it in.
And I think -- I think you guys have made excellent points about like this is -- this isn't just New York, a very blue state, this is New York City. We're talking about a lot of these races. And Mamdani has proven very popular. And so, I'm not surprised that the candidates that he has backed have been successful.
What I will say is I think like the more interesting trend out of this is that you're having candidates elevated over incumbents who have been very hard on the Trump administration. And I think that should be a signal to the establishment that just hammering home on Trump is not enough. They are now looking at corporations, the oligarchy.
HACKETT: Israel.
HAJJAR: Israel is a big one, too, instead of, frankly, I think looking at the tremendous problems that their own state and city has. But that seems to be working because voters are really frustrated right now. So, both the Democratic establishment, but also Republicans should be taken out.
COATES: Again, it's not just New York City, although we are focusing on that. You've got, you know, Katie Wilson, a Democrat socialist mayor in Seattle. You've got L.A. and D.C. could elect Democrat socialists in November as well. I mean, this idea that it's just confined to that one area might not be the accurate trend.
And you have to wonder. Of course, you look at this in the future. Every so-called establishment rejection, if you elect somebody, they become an incumbent and, therefore, a part of the establishment one day. I mean, Trump himself ran as an outsider. I don't know how much insight you can get than a two-term president.
BEDINGFIELD: Very much so. Very much so. And it's -- and a lot of this -- a lot of what we're seeing here is a reaction to Trump. And, you know, you were talking about some of these things that some of these Democratic socialist candidates are saying that, you know, would frankly would not be palatable in a lot of parts of the country.
But the kind of through line is they are fundamentally reactions to what have become unpopular Trump policies on immigration, on interior enforcement. People seeing their neighbors, you know, pulled out of schools and -- and -- and, you know, sent into deportation processes. And people have said, you know, no, enough, too much.
And so, you know, what is interesting -- I absolutely agree that, broadly speaking, of course, the Democratic Party has to set its -- its vision, has to tell people what it stands for, especially as we move into 2028. But the cold reality of midterms is they are historically a referendum on the party in power. They are a referendum on the White House. People are frustrated with the cost of living. They blame Donald Trump for it.
And so, I think Democratic candidates who just hammer that message into November, I think, are going to do well, are going to do well in the midterms.
HAJJAR: I would push back, though, because I think, you know, I agree this is a referendum on the party. You have a group, the DSA in particular, that is offering a message, and then you have the establishment that is just not offering a message. But we're talking, again, about deep blue New York. And even if you're looking at D.C., Seattle, these are all places that are probably going to go Democrat anyways.
[23:10:02]
What Democrats need right now are the purple districts. They need the places that Republicans are just barely holding on to. And I don't think that the message that Mamdani is running on and endorsing in these races is the one that can win the seats that Democrats actually need.
COATES: Well, you know, Tiffany mentioned and she called -- she alluded to the fact that she thought maybe Mamdani was the leader of the Democratic Party. I think many would bristle at that conclusion. But there is a concern when we're talking. We have a CNN poll that came out just last week about so many independent voters ruling the day and just having to recalibrate as a result. Do you think that the messaging of places like New York is moving the Democratic Party too far left to be able to survive in a general or is that hyperbole?
HACKETT: It may be pushing the Democratic Party to be a little bit more bold in its policy approaches. But I think, you know, I agree that this was also a reaction to the weakness of the Democratic Party brand right now. I mean, that is in large part due to the kind of eyes wide shut leadership of the last four years and kind of ignoring the problems that we had in -- with our own voters.
And that weakness has left an opening for very progressive candidates, for even Democratic socialist candidates to go out there with a kind of new vision for the party that I think voters are saying, you know, we're so fed up with Trump, we're so angry about the current situation that we're willing to embrace a different, you know, kind of bolder approach that may not even necessarily, you know, own the moniker of the Democratic Party. They'll call themselves Democratic socialists.
I don't think independent voters are necessarily scared of that anymore. I don't think the right wing has demonized that to the point where it's, you know, that we can't retrieve those voters back to our coalition.
SMILEY: I think the candidates are doing for themselves, though, because a lot of these -- you know, what I find interesting about these New York races is they're anti-Israel. A lot of these candidates are anti-Israel. They want to abolish the police. They want Medicare for all, transgender reassignment for all. And these are some of the most Jewish communities in the world. HACKETT: I should tell you -- I should tell you the state of our relationship with Israel.
SMILEY: Besides Israel. And so --
COATES: On that point --
SMILEY: -- not only that.
COATES: Hold on. I want to finish my point. But I did talk to Dan Goldman last night who just lost in his race.
SMILEY: Yes.
COATES: And we know that Israel and the policies that Netanyahu has promoted has been quite an undercurrent of tension for a lot of voters in that particular area. He lost to Landers 66 percent to 33 percent. This is somebody who was a DOJ or pursuit of justice darling not more than a year ago. Waiting to hear from him still tonight about his loss. But here's what he told me just last night about the prospect of losing this race.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Do you think that your views on Israel or your stance with respect to the definition of genocide will ultimately cost you this election?
REP. DANIEL GOLDMAN (D), NEW YORK: I have no idea. If I lose because of that, then so be it. I'll wake up on Wednesday morning, and I will proudly look myself in the mirror and know that I stood with my values and my morals, and that I still have my integrity, and that's much more important to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, do you think that AIPAC stance is on Israel? Is this a new litmus test for Democratic voters going forward?
UNKNOWN: It shouldn't be.
UNKNOWN: It shouldn't be.
UNKNOWN: It shouldn't be.
COATES: I mean, well --
SMILEY: These candidates also in some regard hate America. And I think that is --
(CROSSTALK)
COATES: Which candidate hates America?
SMILEY: (INAUDIBLE) said --
COATES: Hates America?
SMILEY: She said the USA is a disgrace, and I want to wipe my hands with the American flag.
COATES: James Baldwin said, hold on, I love this country more than anyone else.
(CROSSTALK)
I'll finish James Baldwin's quote. I love this country more than anyone else which is why I reserve the right to criticize it perpetually. People have every right in this country to address grievances.
SMILEY: They can, but that should trouble every single American because this is the greatest country on earth. And it is great because we do not have socialism. Unless you want to go back to the Soviet Union. If everyone would like -- if the Democrat Party wants to go that way, here we go, we have an opening to work.
HACKETT: It's going to be a litmus test on the right just as much as it's a litmus test on the left.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes. HACKETT: I mean, Israel, their -- it's the same with AIPAC, right? Like their actions have necessitated a conversation about their relationship with the Democratic Party. And I think a lot of Democrats are looking at that relationship with weary eyes because we've seen, especially over the last few years, that Israel has carried out atrocities with our blessing, with our tax dollars, and just with Iran have pushed President Trump, well, you know, it's his choice ultimately, into another, you know, ridiculous war in the Middle East that has cost American lives, that has cost billions of dollars, and that's in large part due to the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu. I think that that necessitates a reevaluation of our relationship with Israel and our relationship with AIPAC.
HAJJAR: Can I just say, I think that Iran has invited a lot of the problems. It is literally a tyrannical, fanatic regime.
HACKETT: Sure.
HAJJAR: They've invited a lot of their own problems. But look, we're talking about New York a lot tonight. New York has plenty of problems.
[23:15:00]
The fact that Israel is a litmus test when New York has some of the least competitive tax structure, a lot of businesses are thinking of leaving, cost of living is through the roof, working people are really struggling, and Israel has become a litmus test in this election is ridiculous. Socialist candidates are using that as a distraction because they know that their ideas simply don't work.
COATES: Well, they don't believe that, though. They will be steadfast, and they will talk about their viewpoints and stance. And I'll let them speak for themselves. I'm not going to speak for any candidate. I'm not running.
But they have said more than once that they believe that their stance is about foreign policy proposals and the priorities of the American government and military, and to whom they owe allegiance or allyship. And so, they don't look at it as the idea of either anti-America. They look at it as, they have expressed, the responsibility of expressing their viewpoints through American lenses. So, is it for them so dismissed?
HAJJAR: Look, I think, ultimately, it's up to the voters. If that's a voters' top issue, that's a voters' top issue. Our country is great because we have that choice.
I just think that when you're looking at the problems that not only the country faces, the economy, immigration, crime, all of these different issues, but then you look at New York and it's all times 10, it's pretty interesting that people who carry an ideology that we know doesn't work anywhere else, it has caused suffering and death for many people, are spending so much time on that hot-button issue.
COATES: I cut you off. Go ahead.
BEDINGFIELD: No, no. I just -- I mean, look, where it is dangerous, unacceptable, contemptible is the conflation of criticism of the actions of the Netanyahu government with antisemitism or criticism of the Jewish people. And I think there are absolutely candidates running, including DSA candidates, who have a, you know, vehement disagreement with the way the United States has funded Israel's defense. They can and should make those arguments.
Where it gets really, really scary and where I think it has started to bleed into this territory is when it becomes a criticism of the Jewish people or a suggestion that somehow, you know, Jewish money is, you know, pulling strings in our government. These are age-old antisemitic tropes. And you hear it, you hear it from candidates on the far left. You hear it from candidates on the right, too. The right is having this debate as well. And that is where it gets dangerous.
And I think the idea that it's a litmus test in races across the country, I'm not sure I agree with that. I think most voters across the country may feel some sense of moral outrage when they look at what's happening, what has happened in Gaza. They aren't -- most Americans are not voting on that -- on that issue.
COATES: I encourage everyone to go to my Twitter page because I interviewed Goldman about the idea of conflation as well, and he had a very interesting response that I think everyone needs to hear.
But stand by. This panel is with me for the full hour. They're taking your questions a little later on. Hey, you can join the conversation. Just text me, 818-972-7272. Include your first name, your city or state. I like to know who I'm talking to.
Up next, we'll hear from a top ally of Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Former congressman Jamaal Bowman standing by to weigh in on tonight's races and what it could mean for his other friend, AOC. Plus, he called himself big A.I.'s number one enemy, but he fell short in his race to take him on. Why his defeat could set the tone for A.I. in American politics. That's next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX BORES, NEW YORK STATE REPRESENTATIVE: The A.I. companies said they wanted to make an example out of me, which is an insane thing to say out loud. That's definitely something you keep inside your head.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, primary night is making one thing clearer for the Democratic Party. The future is setting up as a battle between insurgents and incumbents. My next guest was an insurgent who won his congressional race just north of New York City as an outsider. They lost as an incumbent during a fierce primary against a centrist Democrat.
With me now, former New York Democratic congressman Jamal Bowman. It's good to see you, congressman. I want to hear your take on tonight because you're a supporter of the New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani. He just pulled off a clean sweep of the three congressional races he endorsed. What do you think message that sends to the establishment wing of the party tonight?
JAMAAL BOWMAN, FORMER NEW YORK REPRESENTATIVE: It's a very exciting night in New York City. The mayor has been pounding the pavement, knocking doors, running ads, doing everything he needed to do to support the candidates that he endorsed.
But it wasn't just the mayor. It was the New York City Democratic Socialists of America. It was Make the Road Action, New York Communities for Change, so many grassroots organizations that surrounded these candidates with the support they needed from the very beginning. And we had great candidates from the very beginning, Claire Valdez, Darializa, Brad Lander are all exceptional candidates, and organizers who have been doing the work on the ground when no one was looking.
And so, when you combine great candidates with grassroots organizations like DSA, with a mayor who's hands-on and pounding the pavement, this is what you get. You get incredible results like tonight that we hope can unlock the political imagination for the entire country in terms of fighting for working-class values and people.
COATES: Let's go there because there are those who are going to easily try to swap this away and say, yes, it was a sweep, but that's New York, that's just New York. What can other states and cities and Democrats in particular who don't live in places like New York take away from this election?
[23:25:03]
BOWMAN: Listen, everyone cares about affordability. Everyone cares about a bloated military budget where we have billions of dollars per day going towards war with Iran while we cannot afford to pay our utility bills, our child care bills, our housing. And so, affordability remains a huge issue. And where our dollars go remains a huge issue across the country.
And when we talk about the economy, it's not just about what's happening at the stock market level, it's about what's happening day to day in the homes of Americans and how much money people have in their pockets. And so, those working-class values of fighting for the working class, fighting for small businesses, that's what the country is supposed to be about, not the big money that has corrupted our politics for so long.
COATES: You know, President Trump talked about the elections today. He thinks the results will make it easier for Republicans to take it in November. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If you look at New York, we have all communists running. They're all excited. They're going to win their primaries. But I can't imagine they can beat a normal Republican. So, I think it's a good thing. What do you think? I think it's a good thing. Wouldn't you like to run against somebody like that?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Well, one, they're not communists. But will nominating these Democratic socialists, will that hurt Democrats across the country? Do you think Trump is on to anything?
BOWMAN: No, I don't think it's going to hurt people across the country. First of all, you know, every district is different, every community is different, and you have to run based on the needs of your community.
But again, I go back to what I said earlier. Affordability, dignity, opportunity, education, health care, housing, you know, all of these issues are universal issues. And so, it's not about a label.
You know, the fearmongering isn't going to work anymore. The division isn't going to work anymore. And, unfortunately, it's coming from Trump. But it also was coming from some of the Democratic, you know, incumbents in these races as well. It's not going to work anymore.
We want solidarity. We want coalitions fighting for working-class people and values. And I think that works anywhere across the country. We see it in New Jersey. I think we're going to see it in Colorado next week with Melat Kiros when she wins her election as well.
COATES: You are correct, there has not been universal endorsement of these candidates across the so-called establishment of the Democratic Party. And many eyes have been on Mamdani and, of course, his endorsements.
But Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she used her political capital to endorse many Democratic socialists in state races. She easily won her primary tonight. Do you think that this momentum that we're seeing is going to add fuel to people who think she could very well be a viable 2028 candidate?
BOWMAN: Well, yes, she is a viable 2028 candidate, you know, if she chooses to go that route. I mean, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez has been an incredible leader not just for progressives and socialists, but for the country since she has gotten into office. And so, people are excited about her and by her wherever she goes.
So, yes, they're excited to see her, you know, potentially take that run in 2028. And if she chooses to take that run, I'm excited about that run and excited to support her in that run. But hopefully she's going to be a leader in our country regardless of what office she sits in for a very long time, God willing. And so, yes, the fuel will continue to be added.
But, again, political imagination, that's what AOC represents, that's what Zohran represents, that's what Claire, Darializa, Brad, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush -- political imagination. What's new, what's possible, not the old establishment that has so many people hurting right now.
COATES: Jamaal Bowman, thank you so much.
BOWMAN: Thank you.
COATES: Up next, the primary result that may shape the debate over artificial intelligence and how much voters actually care about this issue that everyone seems to be talking about. Plus, new trouble for Trump's handling of Iran as Republicans in the Senate do something incredibly rare, vote against the president's war.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: We're tracking a race that could have huge implications in the battle to regulate A.I. Tonight, CNN is projecting New York Assemblyman Micah Lasher will win the Democratic primary in New York's 12th district. It's a seat currently held by the outgoing congressman, Jerry Nadler.
But he faced tough competition from Alex Bores, who is the candidate who made regulating A.I. the centerpiece of his campaign. Bores quickly became the target of a pro-A.I. super PAC funded by OpenAI's president, which spent millions in negative ads against him. Altogether, the race drew more than $26 million in ad spending, making it the second most expensive House race this year. Here's what Bores told CNN's Jeff Zeleny earlier today.
[23:34:57]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORES: If they win, they're going to gloat. They're going to go to every member of Congress and say, hey, if you try to regulate us, we're going to end your career. But if we win, they're going to have to rethink their strategy. I think you're going to see a lot more courage from members of Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: Courage for Congress. Interesting. My panel is back along with tech correspondent for "The New York Times," Mike Isaac. Mike, you've been covering this race. You just heard Bores say the results are going to send a message to candidates calling to regulate big tech and A.I. Will that be the case? Are we going to have courage in the future?
MIKE ISAAC, TECHNOLOGY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes. Look, I think it probably stings for folks who are waiting for just a giant sort of bottom-up populist pushback, especially after so much money really flooded into this race from "Leading the future," this open A.I. adjacent super PAC.
But I think one point that at least I have taken here is Bores really became almost a media spectacle after all of this money started flooding in and the A.I sort of -- pro A.I. folks really targeted him. So, there was kind of a momentum that was brought on by this whole thing even if he did lose, if that makes sense.
COATES: You're right because there were also millions of tech dollars spent in favor of Bores as well, including that from -- funding from Anthropic actually as well. Bores's opponents called him out for that very point. But could this race be seen essentially as a kind of proxy war between the two big players in A.I.?
ISAAC: Yes, 100 percent. Like there was this third or really third and fourth little super PACs that emerged during this. One of them was open AI, one of them was Anthropic, and then there was another one called Guardrails, which is more small dollar donations, and another billionaire doing some more donations.
So, I do think it is really like a sort of battle of alignment, if you will, on where you stand on where A.I. should be in all of these. And "Leading the Future," the preferred candidate from "Leading the Future," the pro A.I. super PAC, seems to have won. But we'll see how that plays out and if this actually becomes a real, you know, litmus test from where folks stand across the country or not.
COATES: I'll expand out to my panel here because what Congressman Jamaal Bowman mentioned -- he talked about affordability more than once. People oftentimes will link that to obviously being able to have a job, one that has an income that is actually going to give you a livable wage, and it really obviously talked about for A.I. And there was a new poll that came out that found just 16 percent of adults think that A.I. will have a positive impact on society in the next 20 years. Just 14 percent of young adults feel the same way. And, of course, speaker after speaker was booed at recent graduations who even dared to mention A.I.
So, is this issue too distant in the future for people or is this right here and those who are running ought to take note?
BEDINGFIELD: Oh, it's -- it's -- it's right here. And I think it's only going to continue to pick up steam. I think it will probably be a dominant issue in the 2028 presidential election.
Look, you only have to look at the battle over data centers and how over the last two years, you've seen Democratic governors who were embracing data centers with open arms in their states have now issued moratoriums, saying that they're not going to allow the building of data centers in their communities until, you know, further studies are done. So, the politics on this, you know, is moving rapidly, is picking up steam.
And if you think about it, I mean, A.I. touches people's lives in so many different ways. There's the anxiety about what's going to happen to jobs, how the economy is going to be transformed. It's the state of center questions. Question of, you know, what it means in your backyard. This is, you know, generating a lot of NIMBY concern. There's concern about misinformation, information flow --
COATES: Talking to us.
BEDINGFIELD: Talking to our kids. I mean, it is almost a 360-degree issue. So, no, it is not losing steam. And I do think -- just thinking about this race.
It's also, I think, worth noting we were talking about Mamdani and endorsement. You know, Lasher was Nadler's endorsed candidate. Jerry Nadler is very popular. And so, I think, you know, it's not for nothing that his endorsed candidate, you know, prevailed here, too.
HAJJAR: And he also backed A.I. guardrails as well.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes. Yes.
HAJJAR: It's not as if he was like --
BEDINGFIELD: Certainly.
HAJJAR: -- a free for all.
BEDINGFIELD: Certainly.
HAJJAR: But I couldn't --
BEDINGFIELD: State versus federal.
HAJJAR: Yes. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more that the issue is with us right now. I do think that there is a narrative if somebody is able to craft it around the positive things that could come out of A.I., the productivity gains. Yes, it's going to be disruptive. But here's how, as a country, we're going to rise to the challenge. We're going to innovate and we're going to make the most of it. And it's actually going to be good for us. And I just haven't seen anyone take that opportunity.
SMILEY: The more that these candidates are aware of A.I. and know A.I., the better, because I think a part of the problem, too, is we have a lot of legislators who are completely scared of A.I. And A.I., you know, doesn't want people who have no idea what they can do, how they operate, regulating them. That becomes also a problem in this capitalist -- capitalistic market. So, love it or hate it, it's here. It has good implications. It has a bad -- bad implications as well, kind of just like everything.
[23:40:02]
But I think it's important that a lot of these new candidates coming in are aware and they know -- they know about A.I. and they will know how to regulate it for the American people. That's a good thing.
COATES: President Trump was talking. I want to hear your response on this. President Trump was speaking with Marc Caputo the other day, and he was asked about regulating A.I. Listen to his response.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's going to be for the good, and we're watching for the bad. I think the good -- let me put it a different way. The good far outweighs the bad. We are going to find the bad, and we're going to stop it.
MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: You have the power to use the Defense Production Act?
TRUMP: I have the power to use a lot of things, yes.
CAPUTO: Would you consider using the Defense Production Act to possibly regulate or control A.I.?
TRUMP: I would, but I'm not sure I have to do that. I think, so far, it has been very responsible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: What do you think of his response? Is his approach what Republicans think is appropriate or ought to be?
HACKETT: It sounds oddly reminiscent to the way that Trump framed his opinions on crypto just a few years ago. That's why I think it's such a massive mistake that A.I. is inserting themselves into these Democratic primaries right now because just a few years ago, you had Democrats who were at least open to the idea that crypto could have some sort of economic benefit, that there would be some sort of way that crypto could be used for a positive. And I think right now, we're having this national conversation about whether A.I. -- whether there's going to be shared benefits or harms from A.I. And you have A.I. inserting themselves into the Democratic primary in a way that the only result is going to be the Democratic Party shifts away from A.I. and becomes, you know, opponents of A.I.
And I think, you know, it's nice while Republicans are in power right now to be lifting up Republicans or lifting up the pro-A.I. candidates. But when you're in a general election, when Democrats are back in charge, you know, the hammer of regulation is going to come down hard on that industry. If they start turning, you know, their ire towards Democrats in these primary races, they start inserting themselves like crypto has.
COATES: A lot more ahead. Mike Isaac, thank you so much. Still ahead, it's going to be your turn to drive the conversation. Text us your questions and comments at 818-972-7272. The panel will answer them next. Plus, the president heading to the Hill tomorrow, will face some of the very same Republicans who just voted to make sure he can't restart his war with Iran.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have to pass the Save America Act, which is voter I.D., which is proof of citizenship, et cetera. We have to pass it. So, we're going to have to talk about that and many other things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: I bet President Trump is heading to Capitol Hill tomorrow to push Republican senators to pass his controversial elections bill. He mentioned the Save America Act. There might be more tension in the room than he had anticipated because the Senate just voted to limit Trump's war powers in Iran for the very first time. And it did so with help from four members of the Republican Party, his own party.
And Trump is not happy with them. In just the last hour, he posted they -- quote -- "provided aid and comfort the enemy. Four Republican losers voted with the Democrats, and Iran asked my people, 'what does that all mean?' These senators have just made my job more difficult, but I will get it done, one way or the other, because I always get it done."
My panel is back with me. All right, I mean, tomorrow is a big day for the president. You can't possibly think he's not going to have tension and pushback. This is an unpopular war. People have many questions about the agreement that we still don't have details on. But Kate, I mean, the White House is calling this resolution meaningless and it doesn't even carry any force of law. But it's still a stunning rebuke to this president. BEDINGFIELD: Yes, from a party that has been very, very hesitant to rebuke him, you know, essentially at almost any turn. So, it is a clear indicator of how just how unpopular this war is, just how much pressure these Republicans feel like they're getting back home in their states.
And I think across the board, we've seen the Trump administration fail to explain effectively why we got into this war, you know, fail to define the terms of success, and then fail to be able to deliver consistently on a plan to get us there.
So, you know, it may be meaningless in the sense that it doesn't carry the weight of law, but it is certainly -- it should be a giant red flashing warning sign for Trump and the White House about the unpopularity of this war.
COATES: Is there any hope Trump can -- can change the mind of the skeptics who've already been outspoken publicly, which has not always been the case?
SMILEY: Yes. I mean, any time President Trump goes to Capitol Hill, usually good things come out of it. He gets what he wants in the end or brings people together. And I think, you know, this is just -- President Trump is one of the only presidents certainly in my lifetime that was willing to deal with Iran. They needed to be dealt with. And he is doing that. Look, he has a signed document. That's something Obama was never able to do. The Strait of Hormuz is open.
BEDINGFIELD: He tore up the signed document.
SMILEY: The Strait of Hormuz is open. And Iran --
BEDINGFIELD: As it was before --
SMILEY: -- will never have a nuclear weapon. That is really good for the safety of the world. That is really good for the safety of Americans. And I think also, in terms of the Save America Act, when he's going to go to Capitol Hill tomorrow and discuss that, it is widely popular. Sixty-eight percent back it. Sixty-six percent of independents and nearly half of the rank and file Democrats are behind that as well. It's popular with the American people. So, I think some really good things can come out of his meetings tomorrow on Capitol Hill.
COATES: I have to say, you said not in your lifetime. You were alive during Obama, right?
SMILEY: He sent pallets of gas, but he got nothing done. Iran still has nuclear weapons.
(CROSSTALK)
HAJJAR: I think I have to say --
[23:50:00] BEDINGFIELD: We were able to go in and ensure that they were not, you know, enriching uranium in a way that was going to create a nuclear weapon. I mean, we're basically exactly back to where we were when Trump tore up that deal, except we've now spent hundreds of millions of dollars and lost lives. And gas is much more expensive for people across the globe.
HACKETT: And now, the Strait of Hormuz --
SMILEY: Gas prices are now coming down.
SMILEY: I do have to say, I think the problem is, and I think this is why he's getting pushback not only from the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, but also from more hawkish Republicans, is that he did do something militarily historic.
He did degrade the regime militarily. He took out top levels of the Iranian regime. And then he took all that leverage and, per the points of this MOU, squandered it because he's about to unlock billions of dollars of cash for the mullahs in Tehran, and that's going to go ahead and enrich their proxies. That's my concern with this deal.
COATES: Mr. President, eat your Wheaties. Capitol Hill is coming for you tomorrow. Maybe.
I have viewer questions right now. Jane from New York says, what happened with Dan Goldman at this Poetica coffee shop was uncalled for and has actually turned me off from voting for anyone connected to the Dem Socialist Party?
You know, there has been a visceral reaction to what took place with Dan Goldman. I wonder if there's going to be a conflation of that behavior with the movement.
HACKETT: I don't think the Democratic Party necessarily has to own everything that a private business decides to, you know, turn away someone's business. I don't think that that's within the Democratic Party's remit to control. I do think that it was uncalled for. I do think that it's an unfortunate reaction to a very emotional and enraging situation going on with Israel.
But, you know, as Mamdani said in response to this, it's not necessarily the kind of thing that we should be, you know, precluding people from enjoying businesses because they have to take a certain political stance.
COATES: Public accommodation investigation might be forthcoming. Zach from Omaha, Nebraska asks, do we maybe think that Republicans and MAGA have tried to demonize democratic socialism because they are so scared of its winning message? I don't think the country is afraid of that word anymore. Huh. What do you think?
SMILEY: There has never been a better time to be a socialist in the United States of America than now. And I can't believe I'm saying that. But there is an open lane for them to carry their message far and wide. And to me, it's frightening. But I also know that their policies are notwithstanding. They will not be able to hold or hold them up in this great United States of America.
COATES: We shall see. Success is already tonight free for New York. Joel from Pennsylvania asks, will Mamdani's success tonight mean future Democrat party success nationwide? What do you think, Kate?
BEDINGFIELD: I think, you know, as we were talking about earlier, I mean, I think New York is unique. It is uniquely liberal. But I do think that there is -- what Mamdani has been able to do in New York is energize a segment of the population that has been disillusioned with the Democratic Party, that has not been energized.
And so, if he is able to continue to tap into that sense of energy and to do it, we're talking about this in the break, in sort of a happy warrior, optimistic way, you know, then if that's turning out young people who have looked at the Democratic Party over the last 10 years and said it's not for me, then that's a good thing for the party.
COATES: What's that saying? If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.
(LAUGHTER)
I guess it doesn't apply politically, according to this panel. We'll see. Garrett from Florida asked this question. Iran -- one of the worst U.S. foreign policy deals in many decades -- will this end Trump's hold on the Republican Party? What do you think?
HAJJAR: I think it's going to depend a lot on what the president can salvage from the current situation that he has on his hands. Again, he has given up a lot of leverage in this MOU. He's unlocking a lot of cash for a regime that has proven, even in the past months, executing political dissidents, that they have not changed, that they will continue to carry out their evil agenda.
COATES: We will see what happens tomorrow on Capitol. Thank you, everyone, for joining in. And, of course, for my panel as well. Always great to have you guys here. It's almost midnight, which means it is time for some levity. Thank God. And tonight, we'll get some from the World Cup tourists discovering America for the first time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I wanted to be the superior Frenchman snob, but then I ate the beaver nuggets. I don't know what is in them. I think it is sugar, butter, and pure methamphetamine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, it's almost midnight here on the East Coast. I want to bring in my good friend, Elex Michaelson, out in Los Angeles. All right, Elex, now, the World Cup is well underway and tourists are weighing in on the food, the culture that America has to offer. You've got Taco Bell and the Waffle House in all people's minds. Do you expect any more favorites in the coming weeks?
ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, I mean, for those folks that are out here, and we have another USA game on Thursday, I mean, in and out, I would imagine, is something that's got to be a staple. But, you know, your producer said, what would we want to tell people if they were coming to visit? Like, what should you try?
COATES: Yes. What did you say?
MICHAELSON: So, for me, I said, if you're coming to Southern California, which is hosting a lot of the games, I said street tacos.
COATES: OK.
MICHAELSON: It's sort of off the beaten path. You've got to enjoy that. That was my suggestion. And what about you?
COATES: My suggestion, if you can see an ocean, a lobster roll. Now, if you were in some place, there is no ocean or water or any hope of a lobster being there or as they say, a lobster, then don't eat it.
(LAUGHTER)
But, maybe a shrimp roll is good. I don't know. That's pretty good. But I love those. I love Kansas City barbecue. I love North Carolina barbecue. I love food. So --
MICHAELSON: Yes.
COATES: -- let's get some good -- you know where it is. I mean, I know Buc-ee's is very popular, but maybe not their lobster roll. Do they have them?
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: You really could go on an eating tour.
COATES: You could.
MICHAELSON: Just of the great cities that are hosting games. And all of them so different. From New York to Kansas City to the Bay Area.
[00:00:00]
You know, it would really be -- to Dallas, Texas. Get some great steak. I mean, there's a lot of great options all around the country.
COATES: Little known -- little known fact about me. You know, I'm a certified Kansas City barbecue judge. I'm just saying.
MICHAELSON: Are you?
COATES: I mean, some things about me are just surprisingly wonderful. MICHAELSON: Yes. And so, what is the -- what -- to end with this, what is the key to great Kansas City barbecue?
COATES: You feed it to me. Have a great show, Elex.
(LAUGHTER)
MICHAELSON: Thank you, Laura.
COATES: Thank you. Bye.
