NINA: Coming up next, can Democrats win the House and the Senate?

Also tonight, this midterm election is the most expensive in American history.

And what's the deal with Russia?

The “Ivory Tower” professors are back in a moment.

>> This program is brought to you by the members of WCNY.

Thank you.

♪ ♪ NINA: Good evening, and welcome to “Ivory Tower”.

We're glad you're here.

I'm Nina Moore of Colgate University.

The professors around the table tonight are Norrell Edwards of Le Moyne College.

Luke Perry, of Utica University, Rick Fenner, also of Utica University, and Anirban Acharya of Le Moyne College.

Winning the White House -- I'm sorry -- winning the House of Representatives on election day, seems like a sure thing for the Democratic Party.

An unexpected twist in this election cycle -- the Senate is also in striking distance.

Polls show Democratic candidates slightly ahead in several tight races with Republican incumbents, Maine, Texas, Ohio, Alaska, North Carolina, just to name a few.

So, Luke, how did this happen?

How did we come to this place?

LUKE: Well, I think we've seen historically that midterm elections, particularly in a president's first term, are a referendum in how the president's doing.

We all know that President Trump is not popular, and his approval Rating is in the 30% range.

So even though this isn't a favorable map for Democrats, meaning the one third of seats that are in play are predominantly in Republican areas in the south, in the high plains, the Democrats have a coin flip chance of winning this election, which a month or two ago, I wouldn't have thought.

NINA: It does seem very much like a coin flip, Anirban, in that these are very tight races.

We're talking roughly two percentage differences up until, what, like 10%?

ANIRBAN: So, I mean, I think the issue is that in the last election that president won, there was a massive coalition among young people and Latinos, that the Republicans were somehow able to cobble together in Texas, in Florida, and other of these places.

What we see now is that particular coalition of Latinos and young people, they are fracturing.

And as a result, the Republicans are in trouble because they cannot rely on those on that coalition which brought them to power in the last election.

And even though redistricting happened in between, now it seems that the redistricting might backfire because those were based on older terms.

I just want to quickly talk about one state you didn't mention, which is Michigan, and this is getting so ugly.

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, he is a doctor, and he's fighting, and the level of vitriol against who he is as a Muslim in talking, calling him an Islamofascist communist.

I don't even know how that pans out, but somehow it's a thing.

So, you know, these kind of personal attacks by Republicans and not willing to talk about the economy, you know, reveals more than it hides because then you are really, really desperate and, you know, attacking the person rather than actually talking about policies.

So as soon as you want to talk about policy, the Republicans are in backfoot and where the Democrats are hammering constantly.

NINA: What's the saying in the practice of law when you don't have the politics on your side or the facts on your side, then you argue the law.

RICK: As Yogi Berra said, it's like déjà vu all over again.

If you go to me, I think what's happened here is, if you go back to September 2024, GDP was growing at about 2.7%.

Unemployment rate was 4.1%.

Inflation had come down from Nine to 2.4%.

But the public was very unhappy with the economy.

All polls said that they thought it was number one issue, and what was the Biden administration doing?

Scolding voters, telling them that they should be happier, because things were going well.

Today, GDP growing about the same amount, 2.1%, unemployment, at 4.2%, inflation is actually a little bit higher, 3.7%.

And what is Donald Trump doing?

He's lecturing people, telling them, This is the greatest economy that there's ever been, as they are pumping $7 a gallon diesel fuel into their trucks.

I think he's made the same mistake.

I think that this is going to come down to the economy, and this could be the tipping point, Which gives Democrats the ability to win seats in places that they haven't won in a long time.

NINA: Norrell?

NORRELL: I mean, I think, also, thinking about, you know, the fracturing of the young vote, I mean, they are increasingly disillusioned about jobs and also AI.

I think the AI threat is much more looming than it was even just two years ago.

NINA: So I want to come back to both Anirban and Rick's point.

about the economy and also about the personality of candidates.

Is it a problem that Democrats, even though the economy may be giving Republicans an edge, Democrats are running controversial candidates?

So is that going to figure in here?

Are they going to blow the lead, because they have whether the Questions being raised are legitimate or not, the questions are there.

RICK: Well, I think both sides have controversial candidates.

You look at Texas, should have been an easy win at the Senate for the Republicans.

John Cornyn was head in the polls, and Trump jumped in and backed Ken Paxton, and if not for that, you know, I don't think this would be as close of a race.

James Tallarico is a good candidate, but there are many independents and Republicans who will refuse to vote for Paxton.

Will they vote for Tallarico?

Will they not vote at all?

I don't know.

But I think Trump, in this case, if they lose Texas, he's going to be to blame.

ANIRBAN: I think even if you find that these candidates are, you know, not in the -- not centrist candidates are far extreme, at the same time, I feel a lot of Republicans, to your point, regarding dissolution, Republican voters might just not come out and vote.

And to some extent, right?

what the Democrats, I think, correctly are doing, is talking about affordability, talking about people, not being able to afford their, you know, daily necessities of life, and keeping it at the pocketbook level rather than, you know, this identity politics level, which I always predict in this show.

And I think that's a good move to concentrate on labor, concentrate on working class, and what that particular group needs.

And I think that will be helpful.

NINA: Here's some constants, Luke, it's always the economy, isn't it?

And the president's party always loses seats during the midterm.

So what's different here?

Because it feels like there's something different in the air that Democrats could take the Senate by more than just the usual three or four.

LUKE: I think it's the historically low approval ratings of the president, as was pointed out, he's dropped the ball in terms of consumer prices, which is the main reason that he was elected.

And candidates are important, issues are important, but fundamentally, it comes down to people's sentiment, towards the direction of the country, and they're not bullished.

And that's why the first two steps, the Democrats winning the Senate, is taking North Senate, is taking North Carolina, which both sides have pretty much acknowledged that the Democrats are going to win, which is a state that the Democrats have targeted for a long time since Obama won it in 2008.

It hasn't had much they haven't had much success in statewide elections.

The second step, which Democrats are also favoring to win narrowly at this point, is Alaska, which once in a while has a Democratic senator, but typically is Republican.

And then you go to the high plains in places like Iowa, which used to be a swing state, but is moved in a much more conservative direction.

So, to me, it begins, and it ends with how the president's is doing, and how people feel The direction of the country, and neither sentiment is good.

NINA: Yeah, okay, well, let me throw this to the table.

So polls are one thing, but there is an enthusiasm gap also that Democrats are out front on, that is, Democrats have, like, 63% high levels of enthusiasm compared to Republicans.

compared to Republicans 46%.

Norrell, why do you imagine that Democrats are more excited, more engaged, enthusiastic about this election than Republicans?

NORRELL: Probably because I'd imagine being a little bit of an underdog, right, when you don't have power, you sort of have something to fight against when you're in power in terms of, I mean, I imagine maybe something, something like that, but I'm not, not entirely sure.

ANIRBAN: Two things here, There's a one - two punch.

First of all, the Epstein files were supposed to come out.

This was a huge campaign promise.

Nothing happened.

So the young people got really disillusioned by that.

The way it was bungled and the ruling class in was protected.

The second was after repeatedly saying, we are not going into any forever war, we are again in a war, and people can't believe it.

You cannot just wish away the fact that we just went into a war, and it's not very popular among a large number of people, especially when the president promised and campaigned on that.

And that, I think, is giving a lot of wind in the Democrats' sails, saying that, look, these are the things that you said you would do when you did not do those.

NINA: Yeah, so if that is the closing argument for Democrats, what is the closing argument for Republicans?

ANIRBAN: Give us one more chance.

We did something wrong, but they are not going to say it.

RICK: Well, they're also trying to now, you know, make it sound like Democrats are very extreme.

They're using both socialism and even communism to try to scare voters away from voting for the Democrats.

Although, polls are showing that people are not as adverse to the term socialism as they used to be.

So maybe this is not going to happen.

ANIRBAN: The Republican politicians would do well if they acknowledge their mistakes, if they acknowledge that, no, this is not going well, we are sorry, we need to work on this.

I acknowledge your pain, but that's not what's happening.

It's gaslighting.

LUKE: That won't work either.

I mean, they're trying to prompt Republicans to come home rather than stay home.

And how you do that is to generate fear that if the Democrats take control of these chambers, things are going to be worse.

NINA: That there's going to be crime, the country's going to be overrun with immigrants, and the economy is going to be worse than it is.

Whereas Democrats are arguing that democracy is ending, right?

So they're both arguing the end of the world.

Well, let's move on a little bit.

This year's midterm elections are the most expensive in American history.

Up by 30% from the last midterms.

We're expected to reach 11 billion that's with a B by election day.

And these figures are only for advertising, not totaled campaign costs.

It's worth noting, too, that one out of every five campaign dollars comes from wealthy donors and super PACs.

Anirban, should we care about these huge sums, why or why not?

ANIRBAN: Of course, we should care.

Look, I will drop some knowledge here.

You know, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page wrote this article in APSR, which is our premium magazine, journal, political science journal, where they say that economic elites and organized business groups have substantial, independent impact on US government policy, while average citizens have little to no influence in US policy, just maintaining that the best theory of American politics is elite domination.

So structurally, we are in a situation where, you know, and as scholar, scholarly work shows, that average citizens, mass groups, mass-based groups, they do not have any independent influence on US policy.

And that is mainly the reason because of the amount of money that comes from corporate donors, PACs, dark money, different kinds of five to 7s, different kinds of 527, whatever it's five to seven, I think it's called.

So, you know, and much of it cannot be traced.

You can go to OpenSecrets and try to find that out.

I think Citizens United opened the floodgate of basically corporate control over a large amount of our policy space, and that is not good.

But however, I would say, though, even though say, look at Mamdani's election in New York, so much money was spent against him by different corporate donors, and he was a grassroots campaign, and he won.

It's not always the case that you can defeat the candidate, but it has a huge influence in U.S.

politics.

And I love me some Benjamin Page, right?

He's a wonderful political scientist.

But the fact of the matter is, Rick, is, the reason Trump is in office is because of the power of the white working class.

I mean, you had, in the Obama administration, a shift or push for universal healthcare.

We didn't get there, but almost there.

So it's not entirely about money, right?

Well, it's hard to find a direct line.

One of the things that I think is interesting is the public is very upset with the amount of money that's being spent.

They see this as akin to corruption.

But the problem is, no individual candidate would gain by unilaterally refusing this money.

Plus, it doesn't really matter, because the super PACs are technically independent of the candidates, and so they can continue to run their campaigns and their advertisements, regardless of what the candidates want.

But I agree with Anirban.

You know, there is this perception that you are able to buy elections.

Now, money isn't the only thing that matters, but I don't know any candidate that would prefer less money coming into them than more money.

LUKE: IThink most of the time, there's not a direct connection, but look at Elon Musk.

He's the biggest spender in this campaign cycle.

He clearly made some type of deal with Trump, but last time that he would give a large amount of money, if he could have sort of the unique access, and then we all know what happened with Doge and so on.

And I think that just smells, and the American public knows that, and I think that's a problem.

You know, if we understand campaign contributions, there's free speech, we're going to continue to have these conversations about the challenge that's trying to limit money in politics.

And I don't think things are going to change until that does.

NORRELL: I think, to Anirban's point about turning to scholarship, W.E.B.

Du Bois has an essay that I've assigned to students, called Why I Won't Vote Where He Talks About the 1956 election, and it's kind of presidential election.

And it's a little bit chilling to think about the echoes of what he says then to today, saying that this administration is dominated and directed by wealth, and that we turn over so many national resources to private profit.

And have a few funds left for education, health, or housing.

And, I mean, imagine he's talking about 1956, and he ultimately feels like, you know, both parties are sort of one and the same, a kind of like corporate enterprise.

NINA: Yeah, so if we accept that the 60% of Americans that believe there's too much corruption, believe that because of money, how is this to get turned around if the Supreme Court has essentially said, as of 2010, that corporations are people too, and that they have the right to independent expenditures, as an exercise of... rick ANIRBAN: The people who are on the Supreme Court, perhaps, that would be... can make a new law, you know?

>> LUKE: Yeah, Congress can ban, you know, put limits on what super PACs can spend as independent expenditures, but Congress doesn't want to do that because their leadership PACs on both sides are getting hundreds of millions of dollars, and there's been a back and forth in terms of who has the money advantage.

The Democrats had the money advantage in 2024.

It didn't help them.

Republicans have it now.

So neither side wants to give that up because they know at one point in time they could be atop of that battle.

RICK But just because Congress passes the law doesn't prevent those people from going to the Supreme Court and saying that the law is unconstitutional.

:NINARICK: Well, and that's that's likely to happen, because the Supreme Court, Citizens United.

: RICKThat's why I made the comment, I think, this probably won't change until the composition of the court changes.

ANIRBAN: But we also see a difference in culture, like Angie Nixon.

She apparently won in Florida, right?

Was like 60,000 votes, $60,000.

That was her campaign contribution.

So there has been some changes happening where people are shying away from these candidates who are supported by massive corporate donation.

And that has been a hitting point in many cases.

especially with Abdul El-Sayed.

NINA: Well, and to go back to Trump in his run against Clinton, what do you have, like, just $500,000 to her $2 million?

So it doesn't always make the difference.

But you were going to say... RICKLUKE: you know, you're right.

We see Musk saying he's going to spend this amount of money and what he gets for.

The problem is, AS Anirban, mentioned, most of this money is going through super PACs, who then get it from organizations that aren't reporting who they're owning.

That the dark.

The dark money.

And so the dark money you write is where, you know, people could be spending money, and we don't know for sure, we can't draw that line between somebody giving and something they get.

NINA: But here's what we will find out, and that will come to like, is whether or not it actually makes a difference this time around.

So now we're going to move on.

President Trump has made a deal with Russia's president.

He says the deal will do two things, bring down gas prices, and bring Russia to the table to work out a peace deal with Ukraine.

But opponents, they say the deal will do the exact opposite.

That it's a drop in the bucket for gas consumption, and it funds Russia and Iran's war efforts against the U.S, But here we want to talk about whether the deal is actually something, no?

RICK: I would say that don't expect gas prices and diesel prices to come down much at all.

Currently, Russia has been producing about 140,000 barrels a day, as opposed to 700,000 barrels a day last year.

This is because of the attacks Ukraine has made on their refining capacity.

And even with the Trump statements, it would take months for them to get the parts to try to rebuild and get the refining back up.

The real issue here is also that the amount that Russia could produce is a small amount compared to what was going through the Strait of Hormuz.

And so until, you know, the straits are opened up, and we have fuel running through there, I don't expect this to have much of an impact.

It's going to sound really good, but we're not going to see much of a change at the pump.

NINA: Norrell, where are you?

NORRELL: I'm not sure about sort of like the impact, but I find it interesting and concerning thinking about how much bipartisan support this had, that Trump has kind of overturned and again kind of comes in line with him sort of not kind of following our, kind of like rules of decorum or rules in terms of laws and those restrictions and sort of jurisdiction.

We see him again, sort of like extending his executive power.

And so, I mean, I think of this as another example of that where he's sort of, you know, gone a step further than he should in terms of his power.

NINA: Luke, a group of bipartisan senators wrote a letter asking him to pull this back, not simply because it's arguably not going to be impactful on prices, but because of what it does to our relations.

LUKE: Yes, Trump is clearly not in sync with the Senate, in particular, in regards to foreign policy towards Russia.

He's long had a grudge towards Zelenskyy going back to his first impeachment.

This undermines our alliance with Ukraine.

There's been issues with intelligence sharing in recent days and weeks.

There's been issues with Starlink, which is a system that the Ukrainians depend on.

People have literally lost their lives because of breakdowns, mUSK SAID it's not him, the, you know, so is it Hegseth?

Is it Trump?

Is it both?

We don't really know, but something is going on there and it's not, it's not good for our alliance with Ukraine and the larger war effort there.

NINA: Yeah, I saw your reaction, Rick, and the link between Starlink and Russia and... RICK: Clearly that, you know, someone made this decision, and it's hard to believe that it wasn't one of the three people, Luke, that you just mentioned.

And so whether they're going to be held accountable or not.

So, again, I think that we're going to gain very little from this arrangement that he's making, and it's giving Putin, I think, at least a public relations gain.

>>Called them a humanitarian.

NINA: Yeah, so, Anirban, is this suggesting that our guiding light for foreign policy is contextualized, and it depends upon what we're facing, that sort of long term connections are not as important, if Russia helps us nail, then Russia's our friend.

ANIRBAN: Yeah, you know, like, you really should say that, you know, we live in a self help system, in the international politics, and everybody's out to have to, you know, think about their own security measures.

And United States, as of now, thinks that it is good to buy oil from Russia, so it will do so.

There is only justice within nations, but there is no justice among nations.

I'm not saying I believe that, but that's the realist kind of spiel.

And look, Trump is transactional.

He doesn't like Zelenskyy today, so, you know, he is cozying up to Putin.

But again, we are only getting 300,000 tons apparently.

NINA: So, Norrell, why is the president doing this?

What is the motivation here?

NORRELL: Nina, what a question.

I mean, can anyone figure out what Trump's motivation is?

It kind of shifts, you know, one day it's this, one day it's that, but I mean, it seems that often what benefits his agenda in the moment that he decides.

RICK: Well, he's more comfortable dealing with authoritarian figures than he is Democratic ones, right?

NINA: And the other argument is that this is supposed to help him in the election.

election.

We'll see.

Because now, it's time for our Greek books, and we're going to start with our F's, and Norrell, Start us off.

NORRELL: Sure, so my F goes to ICE, in particular, for detaining two individuals at a downtown restaurant that I happen to frequent and live not far from.

Margaritas, I can't imagine being there enjoying a meal with my family or my daughter, and seeing a family or someone being abducted.

NINA: Luke.

LUKE: My F goes to Wedgewood Polling, This week, this firm acknowledged fabricating its data after facing scrutiny from independent news organizations.

Several of their polls were included in aggregate polling an analysis by major news New York Times.

NINA: And let's see who's up next, Rick.

RICK: My F goes to the Trump administration for its new whistleblower program on fraud.

I have no problem with the government trying to reduce fraud, even by compensating people for providing information.

But Trump said, quote, I will be the arbitrator of all these decisions.

In other words, I'll determine whether or not the person is deserving, unquote.

We've seen what Trump's done with the Justice Department.

I have no reason to think that he will handle this in a fair and unbiased manner.

NINA: Anirban?

ANIRBAN: My F goes to the Saudi Arabia's tradition of execution for what are considered to be minor offenses in a vast majority of countries.

This week, Saudi Arabia executed a Bangladeshi man and a woman in Mecca last week, after convicting them of a supposed indecent act inside a mosque, they had a four year old daughter in Bangladesh.

According to Amnesty International, Saudi Arabia has executed 100 or more people, sometimes just for minor drug offenses.

NINA: And now we're going to leave you with some good news for the We're going to start again with a row.

NORRELL: A, to the immigration historians at University of Minnesota's Immigration History Research Center, as well as the immigration and ethnic History Society, who have created the second edition of their immigration syllabus, originally created in response to the 2016 presidential election, the second edition was created in response to the 2024 and provides historical context to contemporary debates around immigration reform.

NINA: Luke.

LUKE: My A goes to a group of national security experts who privately have been advising states and localities on how to address federal interference in this Fall's election.

It is a sad day for our democracy that this needs to be done, but it's important to provide election administrators with all the help they need to deal with any contingency.

NINA: Rick.

RICK: My A goes to the strengthening of the central New York Technology Corridor.

First Solidigm, arrival to Micron Technology, is considering investing $45 billion to build its own chip plant in Marcy, New York, just north of Utica.

In addition, Micron will fund the expansion of the Indium Corporation's mineral refining facility in Rome, New York.

This is very good economic news for the area.

NINA: Anirban??

ANIRBAN: La goes to the South African jurist and human rights champion, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, who won the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize for her lifelong work promoting peace, international law, and human rights.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee described her as a driving force in the development of an international system of law and order, while further emphasizing her judicial rigor, personal integrity, and considerable courage.

NINA: Thank you.

Rick, going back to your A... RICK: Yes.

NINA: Micron was a big deal on its own.

RICK: Yes.

NINA: And now to have -- how is it pronounced -- Solidigm?

RICK: I believe it's Solidigm.

NINA: Yeah, that could be a huge game changer.

RICK: Definitely.

We're going to see that this is not going to be reliant on just one company, that we are expanding into other companies.

I think that will increase also the secondary job markets for those suppliers of the chip manufacturers.

NINA: Central New York is booming.

Well, that's it for us in the studio tonight.

We'd love to hear what you think about our discussion.

Please write to the address on your screen.

If you want to watch the show again or share it with others, go to wcny.org.

I'm Nina Moore.

For all of us here at “Ivory Tower”, have a great night.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> This program is brought to you by the members of WCNY.

Thank you.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪