And now a noteworthy week for the Windy City.

President Biden and his party have picked Chicago to host the 2024 Democratic national convention, and the city also has elected a new mayor, Brendan Johnson, a progressive former teacher who campaigned against racial and economic disparities, and he won by a margin of less than 20,000 votes.

He inherits a city struggling with soaring primates -- crime rates.

Table exit around -- David Axelrod is host of a podcast on CNN.

He spoke to Michel Martin about what this victory it means amid the many challenges ahead.

Michel: Thank you so much for talking with us.

>> Happy to be with you.

Christiane: We have just learned that Chicago will host the 2024 Democratic convention.

>> I think it is exciting news for the city.

I remember the 1996 convention that made a huge impact on our city and some lasting improvements, so it is a great opportunity to showcase the city.

Michel: I was going to ask, is a congratulations or condolences?

For those of us to get to visit, it is awesome.

I am wondering if it is awesome for the people who live there.

>> My experience in 1996 was people were pleased to showcase the city.

We had the 1968 convention in Chicago, which lives in infamy in American history for the disorder and chaos that erupted there, so it was a chance to exorcise that and I think people appreciate it.

But it is a challenge for the city as well and the new mayor, who will preside over this.

Michel: Should we read anything into it?

What does the choice of Chicago State -- say about what the Democrats think their messages going into the 2024 election year?

Obviously a lot goes into these decisions.

What does the choice of Chicago State?

>> It says that the Midwest is an important battleground.

Illinois, Wisconsin, which is perhaps to the swingiest of all swing states in some ways, and Michigan is nearby.

And these are two states that a Democrat must have, so I think it speaks to the political importance of the region.

I also think being in the middle of the country is a statement rather than on the coasts.

I think Democrats have had a challenge winning over voters in what has become known as flyover country.

This is a way of saying we are in touch with the entire country.

Michel: Let's talk about the mayor.

The new mayor will be presiding over this monumental event next year.

As we are speaking, it has only been about a week.

Progressive candidate Brendan Johnson, a former social studies teacher and who became an organizer for the Chicago teachers Union.

Besting Paul Vallas, who is a former CEO.

Mr. Vallas had momentum, and Brendan Johnson pulled it out.

>> Polls can be misleading, and these were pretty close even though they gave Vallas an edge.

It was always going to be a close race because of the way the city is divided.

The question for Brendan Johnson was could he consolidate the African-American vote in the city, and could he continue to inspire to build on the support that he got in the general election, because these were the two finalists in the general election among young, white progressives, and he was able to do both things.

He got 80% of the African-American vote, as opposed to 20% in the first round when there were seven African-American candidates, and he inspired greater turnout among white progressives to go early in the north side lakefront wards of the city.

He did better than people thought he would among Hispanic voters, breaking almost even with Vallas, and those three elements gave him a winning multiracial coalition.

Michel: Black voters are not enough to win in Chicago.

It is not a majority black city.

>> In terms of population the city is a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.

In terms of voting population, the dominant vote is the white vote.

What happened here is Brendan Johnson inspired young voters, young, white progressive voters who did not embrace Vallas.

Vallas ran almost entirely on the issue of increasing policing in the city.

He wanted 1800 more police in Chicago, and that got him far in the race in a city that is deeply concerned about crime, but Johnson had a more nuanced position, which was that the city needed more than policing, that they needed to relieve police of the kinds of social work type of interactions that the police are often asked to engage in and sometimes lead to unwanted confrontations and that the city needed to focus more on the economic status of communities that were forgotten on the south and west sides of Chicago.

A lot of younger voters who deeply believe that.

Beyond that, one thing you learn in politics in the modern age is that videotape is often not your friend.

Paul Vallas did an interview 14 years earlier or 13 years in which he was thinking about running for office as a Republican in Chicago against a democratic officeholder, and she said if I run again I will run as a Republican.

He said he was personally opposed to abortion.

Those things were very incendiary to these young progressive voters, and you put that together with his closeness to the police union, he became persona non grata mobilized by this young, progressive candidate.

Michel: Do you think there are national applications for this?

It is not a secret that Republicans have been hoping to hammer Democrats on the issue of crime.

Shootings and homicides are down from one year ago.

Chicago's homicide rate remains a five times higher than New York City's, 2.5 times higher than Los Angeles is -- Los Angeles's.

Chicago is not alone in this.

>> That was a piece I wrote the day of the election in the Atlantic.

Crime and public safety is issues number 1, 2, 3 in Chicago.

Brendan Johnson had to make some amends to this as well, because in the wake of George Floyd, as a member of the county board he was very outspoken and said at one point defunding police is a political goal.

What he was referring to was shifting resources to other elements of public safety and community health.

Michel: How come his previous statements around defunding the police did not drag him down?

>> His past statements on defunding police did not sink him, because in part he walked them back and made very clear in debate after debate he was not going to defund the police.

In his last debate I think he said he was not going to take a dollar away from the police.

He had to make some accommodations to the public mood on this and make clear not just of the public but to the police themselves that defunding the police was not his program, but I do think another lesson of this is that policing is complicated, and it is not just a matter of the number of police you have, because after all Chicago has more police per capita than any of the other major cities.

Our more than Los Angeles, New York, and yet it has a deeper problem with violence.

More police is not the only answer.

A smart policing, and how you deploy the police and other things come into play.

That was Johnson's message.

A winning coalition of voters accepted that message and felt comfortable with what he was saying about public safety.

Now the question is how does he perform?

He has to appoint a new police chief within a short period of time.

He will have to and over -- win over the police.

The head of the police chief union said 1000 police will resign.

You need the police to be fully engaged and willing to work with you to solve the public safety problem.

They did not feel that way about her.

She lost in the first round.

Brendan Johnson has absorbed those lessons, and now the question is how deceiver or, and how does Chicago perform in terms of public safety moving forward.

If Chicago fails, undoubtedly Republicans will hold him up and his past statements as emblematic of the Democratic Party.

I think he knows this is one of the challenges, perhaps the major challenge he faces in the short run.

Michel: Talk a little more if you would about Lori Lightfoot, the outgoing mayor.

She was elected with such promise, and there was so much excitement around her.

An African-American woman that was openly queer.

It just seems like a big moment.

What happened there?

>> Lori Lightfoot was elected in a landslide back in 2019, and there was a great deal of hope for her.

First of all, I think she has a strong and interesting personality.

The first openly gay mayor of Chicago, but she also was elected kind of as a loner.

She was a former prosecutor.

Her message in that campaign but she was going to clean up corruption, but she came to office with no political relationships, and she had a hard edge to her.

She was more apt to extend a clenched fist rather than the open hand, and she ended up alienating a lot of political partners that she needed in order to move the city forward.

And all of that in addition to rising crime rates in Chicago, which were related to the pandemic, but nonetheless on her account, they conspired against her.

She had a high disapproval rating by the time of the election rolled around, but I will say this.

Nobody can plan on a pandemic greeting them when they take office.

She led the city through a very difficult time.

I think she did an excellent job on the pandemic, but the public safety issue overwhelmed her, and at the end of the date she paid a price for it.

Michel: I went to go back to the piece you wrote prior to the election.

You wrote Chicago needs a healthy dose of what each men office -- man offers by choosing one.

So tell me what is missing with Brandon Johnson's victory?

>> What is missing is experience.

Paul Vallas has 40 years of experience in government.

He had run major government agencies in Chicago and elsewhere over those years, and he brought that knowledge and experience to the job.

That also was a comfort to the business community, and one of the other challenges Johnson will have is that he does not have a relationship with the business community in the city at a time when some major companies have moved their headquarters out of the city.

People want to reverse that.

In addition to building relationships of trust with the police, he also has to build relationships of trust with the business community without compromising his progressive approach.

Michel: You have experience with young, progressive person with not as much experience as other people think that person should have for the job.

Talking Barack Obama, of course.

I am wondering if there are lessons that you would impart from your experience with this monumental and transformational political figure that you think Brandon Johnson could learn from.

>> First of all, Obama had some natural executive instincts even though he did not have a great deal of executive experience, and one hopes that Johnson will as well, but part of that was the ability to get good people around him.

To get a variety of opinions and call -- cull through those and take the right steps.

On your point, Obama's view was always that if you can move the ball forward, if you can get things done that are going to help people, you probably need to be willing to compromise, because 100% of nothing is not as good as 60% or 70% or 80% of something.

Brandon Johnson comes from a labor background, so he understands negotiations.

You do have to compromise when you are in office, and the trick is to not compromise those principles that are fundamental to who you are.

Some may argue that Obama did.

I strongly disagree with that, but certainly Johnson has to keep that in mind.

Be willing to compromise and listen and understand what other people's concerns are, try to act on those and do it within the framework of who you are and what you believe.

Michel: Just looping back, progressives want to see something different.

It will say, look, what has been tried as not worked.

The same things have been tried over and over again.

More policing, harsher policing has not worked, so try something else.

Other people say we cannot afford that.

It is too scary out there.

People feel their quality of life is being seriously compromised.

>> The reality is though things are true.

You need effective policing.

There is a need for police and communities.

There also is a need to evaluate what we are asking of police, and are there better ways to handle some of the things we are asking them to handle that often can escalate it ways that are not necessary.

And finally are there root causes that you can attack.

In Chicago, we have a big problem with street gangs, and a lot of those gains are young men in their late teens and early 20's who have nothing else to do but hang out with gangs, and they make a little money whether it is through the drug trade or otherwise, and they have a sense of community there.

The question is how do you get those young men out of that life and give them a sense of hope, opportunity that they do not have today?

Violence prevention is a big part of the prescription here, and now you have a mayor who seems deeply committed to exploring all of those avenues.

And, I think if he succeeds, he will be an emblem for Democrats.

If he does not, it will be exploited by Republicans.

You are right, we tend to weaponize problems too often it rather than coming together around solutions.

Michel: David Axelrod thank you so much for talking with us today.

>> Good to be with you.