Welcome to the Deep Dive. This is where we take
that stack of sources you send us, articles,
notes, all sorts of things, and really try to
pull out the key insights. Get you up to speed
quickly. Exactly. And today, wow, we've got quite
a range. We're looking at a really surprising
political result in New York City, some big international
relations stuff, and shifts in the financial
world too. Yeah, quite a mix. It really shows
how fast things can move on different fronts.
So where do we start the NYC mayoral primary
seems like a good place that definitely shook
things up It really did our sources, you know
They painted this picture of the start of the
race where voters were kind of bracing for candidates
who were Well, let's say less than thrilling
underwhelming. Maybe yeah underwhelming works
first You had Andrew Cuomo who everyone thought
was the likely Democratic nominee, right? Yeah,
but he was coming off that governorship marked
by serious ethical issues, sexual harassment
claims from 11 women. Right, the state investigation,
using state funds for his defense, resigning.
It was a lot. Then there was Eric Adams, the
current mayor, started Democrat, now independent,
and, oh yeah, facing federal bribery charges.
Not exactly a clean slate there either. And the
third name often mentioned was Curtis Sliwa,
founder of the Guardian Angels. Our sources describe
that group as kind of walking a line between
neighborhood watch and vigilantism. And Sliwa
himself. Well, the sources mentioned him faking
incidents back in the day to get attention, falsely
claiming a kidnapping. And also characterizations
in our sources of him being, let's say, xenophobia
curious. So that was the initial field. Given
that lineup, maybe it's not so shocking that
an alternative started to, you know, gain some
serious steam. State Assemblyman Zoran Mamdani.
a democratic socialist. Right, and the sources
described his campaign as just really energetic.
It actually got people excited, which says a
lot, given the context. What's really interesting
is how the sort of establishment reacted. You
had big names, Bill Clinton, Jim Clyburn, Michael
Bloomberg trying to rally support for Cuomo.
Yeah, that Bloomberg backing is interesting.
The analysis we saw pointed out, you know, like
with Musk, big money doesn't always buy elections.
And maybe the biggest intervention or the most
talked about was from the New York Times, not
an endorsement, but what one source called an
anti -endorsement. Exactly. The editorial board
came out and basically said, don't vote for Mom
Donnie. Straight up. Wow. They hit his platform
pretty hard, called it unsuited to the city's
challenges, said he ignores unavoidable trade
-offs. They didn't like the rent freeze idea,
thought it might hurt housing supply, questioned
government -run grocery stores, asking if the
public sector is really cut out for retail or
customer service, and they felt he downplayed
the importance of policing. That's a really strong
statement for the Times. Makes you wonder, though,
did pushing against them like that actually backfire?
Do you know the Streisand effect? Did it just
draw more attention? The sources we read definitely
suggested it played a role. I mean, look at the
timing. That last Emerson poll just before the
vote, it actually called it for Mamdani. They're
right. Spot on. With most of the votes counted,
Mamdani took the nomination with about 43 .5
percent. Cuomo was back at 36 .4. He conceded.
End of that comeback attempt. Beyond the polls
and the papers, we also got some really good
insights from readers in New York. Give us a
feel for the mood on the ground. Yeah, JR and
NYC had some sharp points about Cuomo. Talked
about this pattern, supposedly, of running progressive
but governing more like a Republican. What examples
did JR give? Things like shutting down that Moreland
Commission when it started looking at his allies,
creating that IDC block in the Senate that caucused
with Republicans, cuts to hospital funding, the
nursing home deaths controversy. Oh, I remember
those. And JR also highlighted Cuomo spending
four years using public money to sue his accusers.
But for Mamdani, Jayar described him as having
a sharp mind, thinking deeply. Made some important
points, too, like restructuring police isn't
defunding and criticizing Israel isn't anti -Semitic.
Yeah, Jayar pointed out many Jewish voters actually
supported Mamdani. The feeling seemed to be that
New Yorkers were kind of wising up. Then there
was D .C. and Manhattan. Describe the early race
as being driven by just name recognition because
voters weren't really tuned in yet. Right, but
DC really emphasized Mom Donnie's campaign called
it terrific, talked about this army of passionate
volunteers, smart use of social media. Apparently
his appearance on Subway Takes was a hit. I saw
that. And just connecting with people, walking
around Manhattan, talking to average New Yorkers.
Which DC contrasted with Cuomo's approach, right?
Calling it a desperate scramble with lots of
negative ads at the end. Yeah, DC even compared
Mom Donnie's rise to Obama's 08 campaign in terms
of grassroots energy. Said you couldn't imagine
Cuomo just walking around Manhattan like that.
So this wasn't just a local story. The sources
dig into the bigger picture, the ripple effects.
Mamdani's profile itself is pretty notable. Definitely.
Indian descent, born in Africa, Muslim, very
openly liberal, supports Palestinian civilians.
He even spoke at that resist fascism rally, which
one source colorfully called literally Antifa.
That combination, as you can imagine, hits a
lot of buttons for Republicans, according to
the analysis we saw. Oh, for sure. And the GOP
is already trying to frame him as the face of
New York Democrats and maybe Democrats nationwide.
Elise Stefanik's fund raising email called the
Winsick called Mom Donnie a terrorist sympathizer.
Which implies. Yeah. Very strong language. And
Charlie Kirk apparently posted what source is
called an overtly Islamophobic tweet trying to
link Momdani to 9 -11. The strategy seems pretty
clear. But it's not just the Republican reaction.
This could mean big shifts inside the Democratic
Party, too. That's what the analysis suggests,
the prediction. Every establishment Democrat
in Congress is going to draw a challenge from
someone who is younger, leftier or younger, A
-D leftier. Momdani's win was driven heavily
by voters under 40. Millennials are the biggest
generation now, right? And Mamdani himself is
33, a millennial. And he knows how to craft a
message. Yeah. That soundbite was memorable.
Yeah. Fast and free buses, freeze the runs, free
childcare. Very punchy. So looking ahead to November
4th, the general election, that same Emerson
poll looked at that too. Right. And it shows
Mamdani is the favorite right now, 35%. Sliwa
at 16, Adams at 15. But there are wild cards.
Big ones. A huge chunk, 27%, were undecided.
That could go anywhere. And Cuomo, I mean, he
sounded like he was done, but could he come back
as an independent? That's a possibility. And
importantly, New York City doesn't use ranked
choice voting in the general. Yeah. It's first
past the post. Which means if the anti -Mandani
vote wants to consolidate, it has to be behind
one person. Probably Cuomo, if he runs. And the
sources suggest what that campaign might look
like. Yeah, potentially pretty nasty. Appealing
to independents and Republicans with, you know,
do you really want a radical left -wing, pro
-Palestinian, Muslim kind of rhetoric? And hitting
centrist Democrats with, do you want Mamdani
as the face of the party? It could get ugly.
OK, so from the twists of NYC politics. Let's
pivot to the global stage, a different kind of
drama involving Trump, Iran, international relations,
and surprisingly, a fair bit of domestic political
fallout. Yeah, the sources suggest a theme here
for Trump might be over promise and under deliver,
especially with his reaction to that Iran ceasefire.
What happened there? Apparently he lost his cool.
Sources say he cursed out. Israel, because he
thought they should have stopped firing immediately,
not wait 12 hours. He was embarrassed. Seemed
like it. Embarrassed by their defiance, by them
continuing operations during that window. There
was this quote attributed to him, quite frustrated.
We basically have two countries that have been
fighting so long and so hard that they don't
know what the F they're doing. Yikes. And then
there was this Intel dump our sources mentioned.
Right. The Department of Defense concluded the
U .S.-Israel attack wasn't really a strategic
success, set Iran back maybe a few months at
most. Only a few months. That was the assessment
reported. And maybe more importantly, the DOD
apparently thinks Iran knew the attack was coming.
Well, the analysis points the finger partly at
Trump himself. Remember that social media post
after the G7 hinting about Something big, much
bigger than a ceasefire. Apparently the thinking
is he did that to kind of thumb his nose at Emmanuel
Macron. So a social media post might have tipped
off Iran. That's the implication from the sources
we reviewed. It raises serious questions about,
you know, operational security and how leaders
communicate. And this whole situation also exposed
cracks within the GOP, didn't it? Despite claims
of unity. Oh, yeah. Big time. Forget MAGGA Unity
on this one. Sources highlighted folks like Thomas
Massey poking Trump in the eye. You had Steve
Bannon, who was against the bombing, feuding
publicly with Mark Levin, who was for it. How
bad did that get? Pretty bad. Levin reportedly
called Bannon a contemptible POS. Bannon fired
back, calling Levin Tel Aviv Levin and spokesmodel
for a foreign nation. Wow. Levin also went after
Tucker Carlson, calling him the happy hooker
of politics. Candice Owens said she was embarrassed
for supporting Trump on this. Even Matt Gaetz,
anti -bombing, was apparently arguing with his
own mom who was pro -bombing. So, real divisions.
And the Democrats. Mostly just watching it unfold,
letting the GOP fight amongst themselves. Al
Green filed impeachment articles, but that went
nowhere fast. Republicans and even most Democrats
shut it down. What about the public? How did
the polling look? Not great for the action. 56
percent disapproval overall. Strong disapproval
from 88 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of
independents. And Trump's overall numbers. Took
a hit, down three or four points in the last
week according to the sources, now somewhere
between five and 12 points underwater, depending
on the poll you look at. And we can't talk about
Trump without mentioning. The Nobel Peace Prize,
of course. Still obsessed. posted this long screed
about how he won't get one no matter what I do.
Although his nomination situation is a bit weird
now. Yeah, that Ukrainian lawmaker who nominated
him formally withdrew it, said he'd lost faith
and belief. But then Rep. Buddy Carter, Republican
from Georgia, put in a new nomination. And apparently,
the Pakistani government nominated him too. So
technically, he's still in the running. Like
you said, like a baseball team is mathematically
alive in late September. Exactly. All right.
Let's shift focus again. Away from the immediate
political drama to something looming. Something
consistently kicked down the road because it's
politically tough. Social security. Ah, yes.
The elephant in the room, as our sources put
it. There's a budget bill being worked on now.
Lots of negotiation via media, as they say. And
the Senate parliamentarian threw a wrench in
the works. Elizabeth McDonough, yeah. Her rulings
apparently created some... pretty big holes in
the House version, making the math really fuzzy.
John Thune is trying to push things forward in
the Senate. But Social Security. Yeah. It's always
been treated as a future problem. Yeah. Easy
to ignore for now. Until now. Because the deadline
just moved up. The trust fund is now expected
to run out of money in 2034. That's a year earlier
than they thought. And 2034 is critical because?
Because it falls within the 10 -year window of
the current budget bill discussions. Which means,
like it or not, Congress is now officially dealing
with Social Security. The future is here. And
if they do nothing, what happens in 2034? Benefits
get cut. by about 25%, according to the estimates.
Payments would only be made from incoming tax
revenue. A 25 % cut for people living solely
on Social Security? That's... Devastating. For
millions, it would mean they no longer able to
make ends meet. It's a huge deal. Do the sources
think this will actually get tackled in the current
budget talks? Probably not seriously. Especially,
as one analysis noted, if Republicans are willing
to slash Medicaid right now, it seems unlikely
they'd tackle Social Security head on yet. But
it could become a political talking point. Oh,
absolutely. A potential Democratic line highlighted
was these tax cuts per millionaires are going
to make it even harder to keep Social Security
functioning. Expect to hear variations of that.
OK, finally, let's touch quickly on the economic
signals our sources are tracking. Some positive
flows, some negative. Right. On the positive
side, there's hope for a bill before July 4th
that raises the debt ceiling, maybe includes
some tax cuts, increases spending in certain
areas. That could be seen as a positive flow.
That reciprocal tariff pause, it ends July 8th.
So tariffs are going to be back in the news.
Could go either way. But it's a factor. And interest
rates. Seeing a rise in rate cut expectations
for September and December, that optimism might
last until the next inflation report hits on
July 15. That'll be the reality check. OK. And
the negative signal. Seeing what the analysis
calls rates confirm bearish trend breakdown.
This applies to both the US Treasury two year
yield and the 30 year yield. Break that down
for us. What does bearish trend breakdown mean
in this context? It basically means the interest
rates the government pays on its short -term
and long -term debt are falling below previously
established upward trends. The bond market is
often seen as like a predictor. So this bearish
signal suggests growing concerns about future
economic growth may be a slowdown. It's a warning
sign from the markets. Got it. So wrapping up
today's deep dive. We've covered a lot of ground,
a major political upset in New York, a former
president struggles on the world stage, that
ticking clock on Social Security, and these complex
signals from the financial markets. Yeah, it
really underscores how quickly things can change,
doesn't it? Old assumptions get challenged, new
dynamics emerge, whether it's the power of a
mobilized electorate like we saw with Mom Donnie,
the sheer unpredictability of high stakes diplomacy,
or just the unavoidable reality of financial
deadlines like Social Security. It's all happening
now. It really is. So here's something to chew
on, a final thought for you. When you look at
the New York primary, this grassroots energy
overcoming established figures and negative ads,
and then you look at the Social Security crisis
creeping closer and closer, what does that contrast
tell us about the power of immediate energized
action versus long -term planning? both in politics
and policy. Could the lessons from Mamdani's
campaign, that ability to mobilize and energize
people now, somehow be applied to an issue like
Social Security, to actually get meaningful action
before it's truly crisis time for the millions
who depend on it? Just something to think about.