Democrats are celebrating a midterm wave that flipped seats not held in decades, but what does the result mean for Israel, AIPAC, and the fight over the Democratic Party’s future?
Mondoweiss U.S. correspondent Michael Arria spoke with political consultant Peter Feld the morning after the election about Abdul El-Sayed’s Michigan victory, the Iran war backlash, the Democratic establishment’s treatment of Angie Nixon in Florida, and AIPAC’s changing tactics. They also discussed the growing push to block weapons sales to Israel, and what the left should watch for as 2028 hopefuls like Mamdani, AOC, and Ro Khanna come under pressure from consultants and groups like J Street.
Mondoweiss: We’re going to talk about what happened last night. It’s Wednesday morning, so we don’t have the final results yet, and results are still being tabulated nationwide.
I’ll start with a big overview here. Last night, we saw this blue wave materialize, and it was historic in many ways. It’s not uncommon for the incumbent party to suffer big losses in the midterms. I saw someone say, the United States loves electing Donald Trump and then realizing he’s bad two years later, but this did feel different.
What do you think happened? Was this just a referendum on Trump, a referendum on the GOP more generally? How much do you think the Iran war factored in? What were your big takeaways?
Peter Feld: Well, it certainly was a huge win, and it changed the landscape in ways that will probably reverberate longer than we can think. It was definitely a referendum on Trump, and his ratings are terrible. And that’s really why we keep going in this ping-pong situation: Trump is terrible. And then the Democrats come back, because they’re the only alternative, and then they remind everyone that they don’t do anything.
The problem is you have a real asymmetry because the Democrats are laser-focused on frustrating their base. And the Republicans are generally laser-focused on fulfilling the deepest desires of their base. So this is why you have people coming back to Trump, and why there keep being opportunities for him, even after he gets defeated or slapped down in the midterms or in the 2020 presidential reelection.
Obviously, there’s been a lot of negativity toward Trump since he took office again at the beginning of last year. But no one can really ignore how big Iran was in that, and the reaction against the war in Iran, both directly and because of the huge impact it’s had on everyone’s lives — on inflation, gas prices, and everything that’s a knock-on from there. So it was a huge defeat in the Iran war, and contrary to what some people in the pro-Israel lobby are saying, it was really a defeat for Israel. And a lot of people are taking it as a defeat for Israel. And particularly the election of more champions, building on what the left achieved in the primaries, with Chris Rabb, Melat Kiros, Aisha Wahab, Analilia Mejia, Dr. Adam Hamawy, Claire Valdez, and Darializa Avila Chevalier. We now have more as of last night: Randy Villegas, who beat a Republican by a wide margin in California. We have Angela Gonzales-Torres, who beat a more right-wing Democrat [in California]. And Bill Lawrence in Michigan, Amish Shah in Arizona, Rebecca Cooke in Wisconsin, and Sam Forstag in Montana, all strong progressives who won swing districts. So we have a nice contingent coming into Congress of very progressive Democrats. The problem for them, obviously, is that the Democratic margin is so wide that they don’t have the leverage they would have if it were a narrow win. But no question, this is historic.
It would be even more exciting if there were any sense that the Democrats and their leadership, Schumer and Jeffries, were actually going to do anything to advance the mandate that they just got, but that’s what the next few months are going to be about.
Let’s turn to the Michigan Senate race, which is obviously a massive topic for our beat, as it touches so many of the issues we cover.
Abdul El-Sayed wins. He faced a lot of Islamophobic attacks; there were all these takes and mainstream narratives about the Democratic Party being split and divided on this race, about Jewish voters being divided. Then we have Haley Stevens, who lost to El-Sayed in the primary, and then defected and endorsed Rogers.
What did you make of last night’s results in Michigan and what did you think about these developments leading up to the race?
El-Sayed won a tremendous victory and won comfortably; I don’t think they’re finished counting. Still, it looks like he won by six or even seven points. It’s very interesting because he really became the fulcrum all year, both before and after the primary, of something we talked about the last time I was on with you, which is the Democratic establishment trying to discipline the progressive left—instead of taking the message and adapting their policy. They don’t want to do that.
They want a narrative to emerge from this midterm that the progressives are much poorer general-election candidates than the mainstream establishment ones they had elsewhere in other Senate races, and in many House races where they have very centrist people, often from a security background. And they wanted to be able to say, see: the moderates do well. In fact, Matt Yglesias said this morning that progressives like Troy Jackson and Abdul El-Sayed underperformed, while moderates overperformed. As my colleague and client Corbin Trent replied, that’s really an artifact of the fact that in those red states, there was more room for overperformance than there is in a swing state.
So the grief that El-Sayed got, even before the Haley Stevens meltdown and crashout, was what Will Menaker called a “point-shaving scheme” that Schumer, Neera Tandon, and all the mainstream Democrats were hoping that he would win, but only narrowly, so they could say, well, yes, he won—but Haley Stevens would have won by a much larger margin. Then we wouldn’t have had to spend all that money in Michigan, and we could have won more victories elsewhere.
Well, I think these results kind of destroy that. That “electability” message they have is really shot to hell. Because first of all, it’s a laugh. I mean, Stevens — we just have to step back, and anybody who watched what she did in the last week — it was such a crashout. And she was so incoherent. And so obviously self-centered. She looks like she would have been a terrible candidate in the general election. AIPAC wouldn’t have supported her — they would have been very happy supporting Rogers. And El-Sayed only had the problems he did because of all the attacks in the primary from AIPAC, and then the constant sniping, the moral panic that they tried to instill over Hassan Piker.
And I think what happened with Stevens, as I’ve said, was that they were trying to discipline us. But it ended up being a reverse discipline that we ended up disciplining them. Because Stevens overreached so much, I think she consolidated a lot of Democratic and Black support behind El-Sayed and made him perhaps perform better than he would have if the whole episode had never happened. And in the end, all of the mainstream people — I think Obama probably got on the phone because he does a lot of behind-the-scenes whipping — and once Haley Stevens came out, the entire Democratic establishment had no choice but to stand up against her. And so Schumer and Jeffries and Neera Tanden and Mallory McMorrow all had no choice but to close ranks around El-Sayed. And whereas they wanted to discipline the left, the left ended up just disciplining them.
And with Haley Stevens, it’s so funny because Neera Tanden said something after Graham Platner fell apart in Maine: “Say what you will, but the establishment vets candidates.” But Haley Stevens just looks like she’s so unhinged that she would have been a terrible senator, compared to El-Sayed, who’s just a master class in communication, if you ever want to watch one of his interviews, like on CNN with Jake Tapper. He is, quite frankly, a model of a great communicator, possibly stronger than Zohran Mamdani.
So I think this ended up blowing up in their faces, and they don’t have the electability message to use against progressives for 2028 that they wanted to come out of this with.
I want to get back to what you were saying in your first answer, about more progressives headed to Congress. I think about legislation like ‘Block the Bombs,’ which had something like 22 co-sponsors when it was introduced; now it has 83. So we do see some of these legislative efforts gaining ground.
At the same time, Democrats won by a wide margin, so the party’s leadership seems emboldened. Chuck Schumer is posting memes of him grilling Republicans. I saw Pelosi tweeting in support of Jeffries being Speaker last night.
How does this play out going forward, as we see this battle between progressives and centrists develop within the party?
That’s a great question, and I think that we’re really in a very fluid moment right now because of all of this. I mean, one thing you can say about Chuck Schumer is that he has no desire to block any bombs.
As big as this victory over AIPAC was, Paul Sorrentino posted, “AIPAC won both houses in the midterms.” Underneath was a picture of Schumer and Jeffries from Track AIPAC, showing how much money they’ve gotten from the lobby. So obviously, yes, you have top AIPAC Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate.
And I think Schumer would like the fights to be about anything and everything but Israel. He’d like it to be about Trump’s personal corruption. He’d like it to be about Hegseth and Ukraine. And they’ll include affordability. But they don’t want it to be about blocking the bombs.
The first test will obviously be with the current Congress, which has to vote within the next month on the NDAA – the National Defense Authorization Act – which will include funding for the war in Iran. It won’t be with the new Congress, but we’ll be able to see whether the people who are there and who are going to continue got the message, and what they do about it. They should get the message because the war was extremely unpopular, and I think it really feeds into why we saw the results we saw.
And in the coming year, we will see the bombs blocked. Or we’ll see larger numbers for it. What the leadership does about it will be hard to say, because we know they don’t want it, of course.
Trump and Netanyahu have already strategically retreated on aid to Israel. They announced yesterday there won’t be any more aid. As we discussed before, the discussion will shift to the arms embargo and arms sales.
Our opportunity to push this forward isn’t just legislative. It’s going to be in the pressure we place on the Democratic presidential hopefuls to see whether they endorse Block the Bombs and an arms embargo. We don’t yet know how it will play out, but there’s significant public pressure, and it’s on those of us on the progressive left who are consultants and activists to make it stick because we’re going to get back into being disciplined.
AIPAC has two ways to win. They can win either way: by electing their preferred candidates, or by capture. And we’ve seen a lot of capture. Troy Jackson, you mentioned, was very, very steadfast in his position on Gaza, the genocide, and blocking arms. And then there was a big article by Rebecca Traister in New York Magazine in September about how the DC consulting establishment took over his whole campaign. And they toned him down, and they kind of drained all the spontaneity and all the plain-spokenness out of him. And they toned down his answer on Gaza and on arms. And eventually, he’s endorsed by J Street, which is eager to keep the arms flowing to Israel. He toned down his answer, but of course it’s still a great victory for the more progressive side of the spectrum in the Senate, where we had very few champions until now. Now we have El-Sayed, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, Troy Jackson, and James Talarico, who incredibly won a Democratic Senate seat in Texas; he’s no blue-state phenomenon; he’s somebody who won in a swing state.
So it’s up for grabs. We need to seize the ball and make our demands maximalist to fight the disciplining that is coming our way.
I want to turn to Florida, which was an outlier last night. There were some Dem pickups, but obviously the GOP held its ground in many ways.
Angie Nixon, who wasn’t supposed to win the primary to begin with…I’m looking at the New York Times count, and with 99% of the vote and she’s trailing by less than 3 points.
As soon as she lost, this narrative developed that the Democratic establishment, people like Schumer and the people who run the party, did not invest heavily enough in Florida and that she could have been pushed over the edge if they spent more.
What’s your read on that?
Well, I think we need to be furious with the Democratic establishment for not standing up for Nixon. The road not taken is her opponent in the Democratic primary, Alex Vindman, who was like a Resistance 1.0 hero of the first impeachment. If he had won, a lot of money would have flowed into Florida because he had this national fan base. They supported him in the primary, and yet Angie Nixon won with zero television ads, which was pretty incredible. And look how well she did in this, a very red state that people had pretty much given up on up until now.
And I think we have to acknowledge that Chuck Schumer and the Democratic establishment do not, and even the black congressional establishment does not, want an outspoken, dynamic Black anti-Zionist woman senator from a swing state. That would just completely upend their whole theory of winning and losing in these campaigns. And Brianna Joy Gray, when she was talking about Michigan and El-Sayed, was describing how the centrists and especially the pro-Israel establishment are trying to use black voters as political human shields.
The small group of Jewish Democrats who were supposedly up for grabs, going to defect from El-Sayed and from Democrats in other states too — I saw it mentioned about Texas; it may have been mentioned about Florida. Well, it turns out that they were really irrelevant. You know, they’re a sliver of a sliver. A poll showed that 60% of Jewish Democrats in Michigan voted for El-Sayed. The same poll showed that only 23% of the Jewish Democrats who previously voted for Elissa Slotkin in the last Senate race switched over to voting Republican. So that’s 23% of 2.4% in Michigan. So it’s a sliver of a sliver that was incredibly vocal. And how many articles did we see, over and over again, saying, “What are the Jewish Democrats going to do? Are they cross-pressured? How are the Democrats going to take care of the Jewish voters who support Israel?” Well, when it was Muslim voters in 2024 who stayed home or didn’t vote for Kamala Harris, those voters were blamed. But when it’s Jewish voters who may have a problem with a pro-Palestine candidate, it’s the candidate that gets blamed. And in the case of El-Sayed, it was a lot of Islamophobia.
So, you know, the sliver of sliver knows they’re not big enough to really flip an election. So what you started to hear out of Michigan, from Haley Stevens among others, was, “You can’t win without the Black Jewish Coalition.”
In Michigan, it turned out not to matter at all. Black voters voted for El-Sayed, and Jewish voters voted for El-Sayed, and he won by six or seven points. And I think we can stop ever having to worry again about pro-Israel Democrats. They are just too insignificant to care about, and we should stop catering to them and move on to bigger constituencies like Black voters.
So now, switching back to Florida, why didn’t they support Angie Nixon? If we were going to have a Black Jewish coalition, why wouldn’t she be part of it? Why wouldn’t we want somebody like Angie Nixon in the Senate? And they completely stiffed her. I don’t think they would have stiffed Alex Vindman. I think they would have supported him, because he’s in their model and she is not.
Now, she’s a very, very gifted politician, and very outspoken. And Ashley Moody, the senator who defeated her, was elected in a special election, not a regular election, to fill Marco Rubio’s vacated seat. So that seat’s going to be up again in 2028. And a lot of people say Angie Nixon is going to come back. And if she does, the establishment gets another chance to stand up for her. But I think it’s disgraceful how they hung her out to dry, and we lost a winnable seat by less than three points. There’s room to be angry about this and for accountability, in my opinion.
Let’s turn to the Israel lobby and let’s talk about AIPAC. During his victory speech last night, El-Sayed made a joke about beating them twice.
Their role in this was very interesting. First, you had reports that the Rogers campaign didn’t want to be publicly associated with them because they are so unpopular with voters; then, in a debate, he said he welcomed anyone’s support; and then there’s reporting that maybe they began spending too late to have a big impact.
Finally, a week before the election, they announced that they are recalibrating their electoral strategy. Less than 5 years ago, they said they would start endorsing candidates; now they’re going to stop doing that, and they’re encouraging people to donate directly to pro-Israel candidates.
They’re obviously adapting to the fact their brand is toxic among voters. In the primary between Stevens and El-Sayed, El-Sayed really leaned into AIPAC’s support for her, and it seemed to have an impact.
There was a good Intercept piece about how they are changing their tactics but not retreating, and that they remain heavily involved in electoral politics.
When we talk about the Lobby, there’s also the J Street part. I saw they condemned Haley Stevens for defecting while at the same time not backing El-Sayed. I don’t know what their future is, or what the future of a liberal zionist group is based on the current reality.
What do you think of the Lobby’s role in this election and what comes next?
Well, it’s so interesting. I think that it’s a very critical moment, and in some ways a precarious moment, because as I was saying, you know, AIPAC can win in multiple ways. We know that their brand is toxic. Moreover, it’s really Israel that lost, not just AIPAC. It’s Israel, and what it’s done during the escalated genocide, and how it pushed us into war with Iran that’s turned out to be disastrous for all of us. And certainly for Trump and the Republicans.
They are adaptable, that’s all I can say. And they are totally capable of pulling down their endorsements but making sure that the money goes through in other ways. And that is what they’ll do. The Intercept is right about that, and we’ve seen it before. And sometimes they’re able to disguise the spending so that it doesn’t really get revealed until afterward.
But as I say, they’ve done a very good job of capturing our politicians, even our heroes. I know we’re not really talking about New York City and Mamdani, but I want to segue for a second and say they’ve gotten Mamdani to do a lot of what they want. And even El-Sayed, in his race, he kind of had to launder Kamala Harris by campaigning with her. It looked like he was going to launder Haley Stevens until she crashed out.
But in New York you have Mamdani — who really rode Palestine into office — endorsing Jeffries. And not just endorsing him, but removing his primary challenger and doing the same thing for Governor Hochul. She won big yesterday, and has been at the forefront of doing propaganda for Israel during the genocide. She literally blew off her own father’s funeral to stay in Israel and propagandize in October 2023.
And there’s Mamdani, talking them up, being a big ally to them, and keeping Jessica Tisch in as his police chief. Hochul even gave an interview where she said, well, that’s what I really wanted him to do because she’s a “Jewish woman from a successful family”— her words. Meaning, she’s an ultra Zionist who’s a billionaire heiress. And that’s supposed to be her qualification for remaining in charge of state repression under a democratic socialist anti-Zionist mayor.
And they’re laughing at us in a way, saying, “Ha, ha, ha, you can elect the former co-chair of Queen DSA, who once upon a time, and not that long ago, released a rap video in which he shouted out the Holy Land Five, who were entrapped and are in prison, and you can elect him to the second most powerful executive position in America, as they say about the mayor of New York. And you’ll still have somebody like Jessica Tisch, you’ll still have Jeffries, you’ll still have Kathy Hochul.
And so to me, it means we can’t rest on this victory even though it was a victory.
The upside is that we’ve now proven over the last few years that Palestine is good politics and can help you get elected. But the downside is a lot of politicians will now be trying to ride Palestine into office and yet not do anything that we need them to do — like in the case of Mamdani, shutting down the sale of stolen land in New York City. I organize with Pal-Awda NY/NJ, and we had an op-ed in Mondoweiss a couple of weeks ago on this topic.
Switching back to Congress, we have to look at how they’re going to get away with it. What’s going to happen is they’ll shift to J Street. J Street hugged Troy Jackson. Chris Van Hollen, who a lot of people like because he’s pushed Block the Bombs, but he’s deep in the bosom of J Street.
J Street has been called Diet AIPAC. And I think that’s what we have to recognize. Mitchell Plitnick had a really good op-ed in Mondoweiss a few weeks ago arguing that we need to start fighting J Street because they want to keep the weapons coming.
And if we’re not going to aid Israel anymore “because they’re a rich country,” and even AOC has used that language, then can we get an arms embargo through? And if we get an arms embargo through, is that going to include Iron Dome, so-called defensive weapons? And if it doesn’t, we’re back where we started from, and J Street has won, and the lobby has won.
Even Ro Khanna, who’s trying to be the alternative to AOC for the progressive left. He gets up and says we need to not only cut off military aid to Israel, but we also need to stop the sales of “weapons that are being used to kill civilians.” Now think about the last part of that line. He’s trying to offer it up like an applause line, like “Let’s stop those weapons that are used to kill civilians.” But what he really means is that he wants to continue the “defensive” Iron Dome weapons.
Well, Iron Dome, to me, is the genocide shield. It’s just as important to cut off Iron Dome as it is to cut off the drones and the bombs and everything else. Because the Palestinians in Gaza have no Iron Dom, and they have no F-15s.
So I think we on the progressive, pro-Palestinian left have to get more maximalist in our demands, and we have to really focus on pressuring our own champions. We have to pressure Mamdani.
We have to pressure AOC. We have to pressure Khanna, and tell them, no, we want a real full arms embargo. We can press this in Congress, but it will play out more in the 2028 presidential election. Because if we don’t, the lobby has won, and they’ve gotten what they wanted, and all they want is for arms sales to Israel to stay intact.
Jeremy Ben Ami came out with this vast, lengthy tweet last night claiming credit for everything that just happened in the midterms, and talking about Daniel Biss and Brad Lander, saying we have pro-Israel Democrats, and trying to draw connections with the so-called “Jewish-Arab coalition” they’re hoping to see a form of government in Israel. We need to say no.
What we really have to do is pressure our allies. Because they’re the ones that are at the most risk of capture, and we have to not let that capture happen.
That’s a good setup for my final question, which is about 2028. You’re talking about more progressives in the House, a bigger base of power. There’s the push for AOC; I don’t know whether she’ll run or try to take Schumer’s seat. There’s a lot of other potential candidates suggested. There were a lot of people bringing up Jon Ossoff last night, because he won by a lot.
How do you think this shapes up, and how do you think the question of Israel factors in? Obviously, Kamala Harris’s position on Gaza hurt her in 2024 and it’s hard to believe a Gavin Newsom, or a Josh Shapiro, or a candidate like that would be accepted by many voters because of their positions on the issue.
How do you see this shaking out over the next couple of years, and how big do you think Israel will factor into that process?
Well, I think it’ll be a big factor, and I think we have to make it one. Because it’s so interesting, what you just said: we now have two elections in a row where the party in power lost almost voluntarily, because they hugged Israel. Biden and Harris in 2024, and now Trump with the Iran war in 2028.
I have to say I’m pretty gloomy about the 2028 presidential. Going back to Mamdani and the capture we’ve seen, we’ve kind of reached peak electoralism. We’ve almost seen the limits of what we can do by electing good people. Over and over again, we watch them turn into Obama.
Ossoff’s an interesting one you brought up. He presents a difficult challenge for the progressive left. He gave a very smug interview a month ago where he was asked “Do you support the Green New Deal?” No. Smiling. “Do you support Medicare for All?” No. “Do you want to abolish ICE?” No. How is somebody like that going to be a progressive champion? We really can’t embrace him. And I was particularly offended when, in one of the debates, he was trying to say something good about Palestine. He said, “Israelis deserve protection. There are a lot of innocent Palestinians that deserve protection.” And I’m like, “innocent”? So, Israelis all deserve protection, but Palestinians only if they’re innocent? That’s no good. We can’t sign on with someone like that, particularly if he gets supported by and hugged by J Street.
We need to sharpen our demands. One I already mentioned was a full arms embargo, all arms sales to Israel, including very much Iron Dome, any weapons at all.
Another one that’s come up, and I think this is a challenge for Ro Khanna, it’s a challenge for Ossoff, it’s a challenge for Van Hollen if he runs, and a big challenge for AOC,
But the second thing is this the new demand, that Mondoweiss has covered, #DropTheGenocide20. One of the things we saw this fall that wasn’t directly electoral was this mini-comeback tour from all the architects of all the genocide: Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, crying to The New Yorker about all the things they did wrong, or what they should have done right and what Biden didn’t do and what Harris didn’t do. Brett McGurk with his book. It’s not acceptable. That the architects of the genocide not come back in a new Democratic administration should bes one of our biggest demands, and we need to plaster these people’s pictures all over social media, and make it politically impossible for anyone to get the Democratic nomination without an ironclad pledge not to bring back Blinken, Jake
Sullivan, Matt Miller—Count Smirkula, Ali Abunimah christened him.
I don’t know what the options are going to be in 2028. You’ve got Ro Khanna, and I’ve talked about who he wants to be. He’s very thirsty for support from the progressive left and the pro-Palestine left, but he’s got this glaring flaw when it comes to Iron Dome sales.
Then you have AOC. DSA really wants to push her forward in a big way. And we just saw this huge article in the New York Times that was like a puff piece, and it was all about how AOC has grown up a lot since she got elected in 2018, and now she thinks the Left needs to also. And what that turns out to be is she’s sad about being bullied and pressured over things like the Iron Dome, arms sales, and all that. And in that article, it mentioned, New York DSA is big behind her. And New York DSA is part of what’s supposed to be called the “DSA right” though I would say it’s DSA normies. And they want to overlook any of the flaws with AOC, just like they want to overlook what Mamdani is not doing in terms of policing. And we know that she has a tremendous tendency to dissolve into word salad when she’s asked certain questions that are tough about Israel.
And the idea that she’s grown up a lot since 2018—it’s kind of funny because obviously her biggest accomplishments politically by far were what she did in 2018: beating Joe Crowley and knocking him off the leadership track. Then by introducing the Green New Deal—including the sit-in that was done in Nancy Pelosi’s office. Those are by far AOC’s biggest political achievements to date, the next one would have been in 2019 when she revived Bernie’s campaign after he’d had a heart attack by endorsing him, and decisively pointing the progressive left toward Sanders rather than Elizabeth Warren.
Now it looks like there’s a real danger that she’s going to do what Warren and what Obama did, which is basically to make the professional managerial class to cosplay as crusading insurgents. Will she back it up with substance and policy?
And the idea that DSA NYC is “more pragmatic,” according to the Times article, than the National DSA? “Pragmatic” is getting your actual policies through. And we know that pressure works, and the pressure that AOC got from the DSA had a huge impact in repositioning her to take a stronger stand against Iron Dome, and against weapons to Israel.
So I think we just have to really understand that we can’t coast on our wins, the progressive Left. We have to continue pushing, and we have to understand that our champions, the ones that we just elected, are the most vulnerable to capture and need the most pressure of all.
Well. AOC said Woke 1 was crazy, and now Woke 3 is here.
And all you saw on social media last night was everyone making jokes about how woke we can get. “You’re going to have to put your pronouns in every line of your resume,” and it’s very funny, but the thing is the way that AOC and others abandoned the substantive things that are associated with woke, like policing, that wasn’t so funny. And I don’t think we just need to let that slide. I mean, these people go to Washington, and they get surrounded by consultants. And you don’t raise as much money as AOC has raised without getting surrounded by consultants. And consultants do like an “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” on progressives, like they tried to do with Troy Jackson. So will our champions be steadfast enough and stand up to it? El-Sayed might. I hope he does. And others might. But we can’t take our grip off the wheel.
