Adams said Monday that Cuomo is the number one obstacle standing in the way of his reelection and called for him to step aside.
“I think he really should do an analysis and say: Give Eric an opportunity to run against [Zohran],” Adams said during an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
The mayor also revealed Cuomo had called him to ask the same thing.
Mamdani’s victory in the primary has sent the city’s business and real estate circles into a panic, and the November election is unusually crowded for a city whose deep-blue electorate typically picks the next mayor during the Democratic primary.
Polls have consistently shown Cuomo out-perform Adams in a general election. Even a survey with questions that appeared to skew in favor of the incumbent still found Mamdani winning and Adams behind Cuomo by double digits
Only 46% of voters are never Mamdani voters. Which is lower than never Adams voters (51%) and higher than never Cuomo voters (39%).
I kind of expected there to be a majority against Mamdani, so that’s a bit surprising to me. It also suggests a 1 v 1 battle would still probably see Mamdani win, counter to the current narrative of the split field dooming the non-Mamdani vote.
Which is all the more reason why this "Mamdani is THE future of the Democratic Party" nonsense should cease and desist. Hopefully in the long run this serves as a wake up call for Empire State Democrats to shape up.
This is right up there with the nonsense claim that "Bernie Sanders is THE future of the Democratic Party" – despite Bernie never even being a member of the Democratic Party!
Christ, enough left-bashing. Can’t say I approve of the idea that preventing left wins is necessary. I’m not arguing Mamdani is the future or anything but the constant ideological fighting is getting tiring.
I would have much more sympathy from the moderate/establishment complaints about Mamdani if they had endorsed Lander or Adrienne Adams or someone from that lane of the party without any political/moral baggage and lost. They chose to back Cuomo, so they can reap what they sowed as far as I’m concerned.
Can't like comments from work comp but all this. They all had options most went with the worst option and now are throwing a tantrum. If anything I hope a lot of these idiots who sold their souls to Creepy Cuomo face additional consequences from their constituents.
Wrong Adams (I made that mistake too a couple times before though!). Adrienne Adams is fine, a normal Dem. I edited the post to avoid future confusion.
Cuomo was obviously the only guy who had a chance to beat Mamdani was the reason they endorsed him. Most of Landers potential voters all jumped on the Zohran train.
If that’s the reason why they did it, they have even less of a reason to complain. Their whole argument right now is that Mamdani is too unserious on policy to get any of what he promised done or that he’s too left wing for voters.
They have policy concerns now (which is fair on its own), but when they backed Cuomo they didn’t use policy at all in their consideration of an endorsement. They did it because they thought he would win. Why the sudden change in priority? Now after the primary has been decided, policy matters again for them?
That just makes them even more hypocritical than they already are.
If the only option to avoid an outcome is worse than the outcome, then there's no good reason to go with that only option.
Cuomo resigned in disgrace. There was no way he was going to make us, or his establishment supporters, look better even if he had won. Unless Mamdani is secretly a serial killer or something, even if wildly incompetent he'd be better for our party than Cuomo.
Most "establishment" Democrats wouldn't care if it weren't for the fact that we have to answer for Mamdani in the rest of the country. Like it or not, Democrats simply aren't. allowed. to. have. extremists.
You’ve become unhinged lately in comments posted on here.
He’s not an extremist no matter how much the Trump party (and obviously some Democrats like yourself) wants him to be. There is no policy he has touted that categorizes him as one. A leftwing Dem? Sure. Extremist? Laughable.
Maybe a suggestion for you to consider: If you’re upset about the GOP using Mamdani to tar Democrats, maybe don’t do their job for them? Just a constructive thought for you to ponder.
Republicans always use left Democrats to tar the whole party with. It’s their bread and butter go-to move. We can’t say that progressives aren’t allowed in the party or allowed to be elected. He won a majority in the primary. Get over it and move on for crying out loud.
Eric Adams the "establishment" choice for mayor undermined Democrats nationally on crime and immigration throughout his term, while being an actual criminal who happily abandoned the party to beg the DOJ to drop charges against him in a corrupt deal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The party can find a way to survive without a compromised "centrist" criminal and/or sex pest as mayor.
There may be nothing wrong with it, but there’s also not much right either. That’s what I think needs more attention. Good enough doesn’t mean they’re the best it can be. Voters think Democrats are old and weak because our leaders who voters see on their tvs and in person are all old and weak.
It doesn’t matter what they say or what they’ve done, it matters how they say it. Let me go on the record and say I hate that this is true. I think there shouldn’t be an age penalty because the oldest of us (for the most part) has the most experience to garner their wisdom from. Voters don’t see it that way though.
If we want to win, we need to replace as many seniors as possible in office with fresher faces, like Republicans have almost entirely done (even while going further right wing on policy). Despite that, voters still rewarded them with a trifecta to wreak havoc in the country with.
This is the winning mantra needed in order to start clawing back ground with voters and how badly they view our party. It’s not fair, it’s not right, it’s not how it should be, but it is what’s needed. Perception = reality in today’s America. We can either accept that and work to improve or keep doing what we’ve been doing with likely the same results.
You may be onto something, but I believe the overwhelming reason for the election results last year was inflation. I appreciate that you at least regret ageism, because I think many regulars on this board would support a mandatory retirement age of 65, which the Supreme Court annulled in the 1970s as discriminatory, or even, like, 60, and I also believe that I as a 60-year-old who wants to work as a musician as long as I am physically able have a different viewpoint on this than 20-something folks who think of 60-year-olds as ancient grandparents. I will add a caveat that I don't think politicians whose sudden incapacitation or death would be a problem (let alone Supreme Court Justices like Ginsburg) should serve into, like, their 90s, with rare exceptions like former PM Mahathir of Malaysia, but if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s, I'd like to be able to continue performing if I'm up to it like Pablo Casals was.
I don't support term limits or mandatory retirements, but I am fully in support of using age as a campaign message. If you're that old and your wisdom is of value, you need to explain that to the voters every two, four, or six years. If you can't, thanks for your service. That's how democracy is supposed to work.
"If you're that old and your wisdom is of value, you need to explain that to the voters every two, four, or six years."
I would argue that you need to show that, not just during your campaigns, but every day of your elected term – show that your wisdom, combined with energy and willful persistence, makes you an effective fighter.
I think there’s a happy middle ground, I do think inflation was the main driver of 2024 election results, but I also think the Democratic Party is viewed as old and weak by a majority of voters because our representatives look exactly like that and we elected Biden as president. It could theoretically be a 1 time issue for 2024 only, but given polling and how badly our party is viewed I have serious doubts on that.
I also in no way want to carry this argument over to any aspect of life and I don’t personally believe age is an issue. This is just the brutally honest win no matter what it takes position for politics only. I hope older Americans such as yourself do whatever it is that you enjoy, regardless of your age!
Yeah it's hard to miss who the most prominent democrats are to typical low information members of the electorate. They see Sanders, Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer getting the vast majority of headlines.
AOC gets a decent chunk but a lot of it has a subtext of her either being sidelined by the party or that she's different in part because she's young; either way that subtext would strengthen the perspective of our party as old.
We actually do have a decent number of appropriately aged democrats out there. But they're not getting headlines, aren't being promoted often/high enough, aren't taking center stage for the party in ways that less politically informed people will notice.
Replacing old incumbents with younger ones doesn't in and of itself solve the problem but the headlines that break through of "young democrat" will help in aggregate, especially as we get more of them.
Exactly, we’re not talking about us here on TDB. We’re on an election blog arguing about party direction! The people being talked about is the “I don’t pay any attention or research anything, but I still should go vote” people that exist in America.
They are who believe the party is old and weak because when they glance to the tv on a commercial break at home they see old Democrats and young Republicans. Or if they’re at a bar and in the midst of conversations with friends they catch a glimpse of the political program between beers. Perception = reality.
There’s no way to actually quantify the impact, but if the roles were reversed and Democrats had all young reps while Republicans had older reps after just re-electing Trump to a 2nd term, do we think the GOP still would have swept the 2024 elections? Because I think there would be a Democratic trifecta right now if that were the case.
Policy doesn’t matter sadly, perception does. There are extremely uninformed voters that show up every election. Like that one young woman who was upset at Biden ending abortion. Or the person who spends 5 minutes and decides in the voting booth who to vote for and that is their entire political involvement every 4 years who never watches tv or goes to a political rally.
One can only look North to the most similar of countries to America: Canada. Conservatives nominated younger, diverse, more populist candidates in the last election and they would have won handily without Poilievre as leader and the Trump grenade lobbed up from down south. The party gained a ton of seats though despite those anchors based on who they nominated.
When you look like the future, voters of all ideologies are drawn in. When you look like the past, voters of all ideologies are turned off. I wish it weren’t the case though, but I’m not how a majority of voters think of things. I’m educated, I do research on every candidate. I follow politics closely. We already appeal to those types of voters, now we need to try to appeal to the rest of the electorate.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think it could have stopped it? It passed 218-214, so even 3 more Democratic “No”s, still would have passed. I agree with your point though about the deaths losing 3 votes and maybe theoretically convincing 1 of the wavering Republicans to vote no, or a House race that flipped or didn’t flip making it a failed tie vote after a different 2024 election result in a race.
Because no one else could possibly represent a safe blue seat and the whiners just need to accept that the Democratic caucus will always be handicapped by multiple easily avoidable vacancies.
SC is going to be interesting for the next few years. We’ve got presidential candidates dropping in already, gubernatorial candidates announcing, municipal and county elections happening. What more could you possibly ask for? It’s a political junkie’s dream. Maybe one day we’ll get democracy too.
Demographically speaking, even though SC has a large African American voting bloc, it's still one of the states with the lowest share of people with college degrees. If that changes due to economic diversification, it could easily become another Georgia.
I really hope he’s back channel cleared with the party that Democrats won’t be running a candidate that splits the vote, because if someone runs, the upset potential goes from low to impossible. That said, I think in an I vs R race, he can pull off a miracle without Trump on the ballot. We will see how his campaign unfolds, but I’m very excited he’s giving it another shot!
I too liked him a lot, Dems should follow his template in red states: independent, working class, socially conservative on issues other than abortion, economically populist, anti-elite; rather than trying to run the same old 2006 playbook of GOP lite neoliberal "Blue Dogs" which has seen less and less success over the years especially since 2010.
Because increasingly base Democratic voters - even in red states - won't stand for anti choice candidates. The fact that even Bob Casey Jr called out David McCormick for wanting to ban abortion outright shows that it is nonnegotiable.
Even in red states it’s a losing argument. At least in Democratic primaries. Doug Jones was pro choice, not anti choice in the mold of Howell Heflin and Tom Bevill.
That’s a very complicated case though, that goes far deeper than the headline (or likely article, haven’t read it, guessing here). It wasn’t just a pro life vs pro choice question and the context is extremely important to the end result.
Republicans added a ton of ballot candy to make it pass and it only barely did. I also think there was a sizeable impact on the amendment passing with Nebraska’s current law of a 12 week abortion ban with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest.
Most of the states that had pro choice ballot amendments passing were under a complete abortion ban or complete abortion ban with those 3 exceptions, which was viewed as extreme by most voters (even conservatives!), so they opted for a “not this” choice. Which in those other cases was the pro choice case.
Whereas in Nebraska I don’t think there ever was a “not this” vote, because an extreme abortion ban didn’t exist in the state. I think a 3 month abortion ban with those exceptions is where a majority of voters are on the issue. The GOP there were extremely smart to take an inch instead of a mile, so voters said it was good enough as is.
I don't think being pro-choice is a death knell to run in the state but I do think Nebraska is one of the most anti-choice states in the country and the issue is not as much of a winner as it would be in another 40 states or so including its neighbor to the south. I'd have to dig around to confirm but I'm pretty sure a lot of 50 state polling over the years has shown this.
In 2024, Nebraska had competing ballot measures. Based on the results, the will of Nebraska voters on abortion was clear as mud, but the result was against abortion rights.
By 51%-49%, voters rejected Initiative 439, which would have amended the state Constitution to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability, or when necessary to safeguard the health of the pregnant patient. But by 55%-45%, voters adopted Initiative 434, an abortion-restrictions amendment that bans most abortions after the first trimester, with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. It also gave the Legislature the authority to pass additional restrictions, up to a complete ban.
"Calculations by The Downballot show that the 6th backed Donald Trump 57-42 last year. However, Beshear's landslide 60-40 victory here against Cameron has Democrats hoping for an upset."
After the 2018 wave wasn't /quite/ enough to oust Barr, and our 2020 candidate barely cleared 40%, the KDP went back to not really contesting the seat in 2022 and 2024. This year is different because Barr isn't running, we have a candidate who's used to campaigning, and is 2 for 3 in close elections for a seat that Democrats aren't expected to win in a walk, the KDP is contesting the seat, and the DCCC was targeting Barr even before he decided to go for Senate. That's what has me hoping for a win.
Rep. John Larson has been an outspoken champion of clean energy, with a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters. He also has 100% ratings each from Planned Parenthood and NARAL and a 94% rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Assuming his health holds up, it would be a mistake for Connecticut 1 voters to replace him, merely because he is in his 70s, with someone whose only experience is service on a local school board.
He had two health incidents in 3 months. We've already had 3 Democratic reps die since November. Frankly, I'm not putting too much stock in "if he's able to get beyond them."
Also, I'm not super onboard with the idea that it'd be a mistake to elect "someone whose only experience is service on a local school board." Everyone starts somewhere; I think it's a mistake to write off a candidate because of a perceived lack of experience. There have been plenty of successful officials who didn't have any electoral experience before a congressional run.
I would argue that being at the local level puts them more in touch with the needs of their constituents rather than someone who's been in Washington for 20 years.
All of the current vacancies were politicians in their 70s with health problems. When has trusting that politicians are immortal beings ever blown up in our face ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
What is the cut-off age for firing mortal leaders? 70? 60? The fastest-growing age cohort in the United States is those over 85. The group over 60 is also growing rapidly. They deserve representation.
And I'm sure that many would say that a first term Senator whose only experience was as a State Senator and Constitutional Law professor wasn't ready to be POTUS.
I agree with you. And recent service on a school board could help a member provide some leadership on education issues. Senator Bennet of Colorado was the incumbent Denver Board of Ed Chairman, and everyone would surely admit that he's been a completely competent senator.
Heck one of the best current senators very famously started her political career as a mom in tennis shoes. Is anyone arguing Patty Murray shouldn’t have run?
It's not a problem until it isn't and sure... Someone in their 30s and 40s can have a freak health incident but when margins are THIS tight do we really want to gamble with the health of a septuagenarian with health issues when someone whose baseline is all of those things and maybe even more progressive. These people are replaceable we need to stop pretending they aren't.
It looks like Rep. Mark Takai (D-HI) he was 49. He had announced he wouldn't run for reelection months earlier after a cancer diagnosis and died in July of 2016. You have to go back to the 80s to find the next rep that died in their 40s Rep. Mickey Leland (D-TX) who died in a plane crash.
I think there was a car accident or something in the past few years wasn’t there? Ok, not a federal rep, but yeah in Connecticut a previous recently elected lawmaker died after a wrong way driver car crash in 2023, he was only 39.
But the point behind your question is poignant, there aren’t many and I’d hazard a guess that none involved health complications. That said, for a very long time of US history, it was run almost entirely by old people, so young Dem reps never got into office in the first place to even have a chance to die while in it.
I'd argue that's not the right way of looking at it.
What would his realistic replacement's stances be? If any realistic successor is roughly as good or better on those issues then those are not good reasons for him to avoid retirement.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, points out that even if Republican voters lose access to health care, it’s far from a given that they’ll hold their party responsible. “Even if it’s clearly the Republicans who’ve done it, they’ll find a reason to blame the Democrats,” he said.
https://archive.ph/Q4uzh NYT: Everyone Hates This Bill. Dan Osborn Could Make Republicans Pay for It. - Michelle Goldberg
Partisans are partisan., they’ll never acknowledge fault and never blame Republicans as they are Republican voters. We can’t win them, we’re not aiming for them. They’re gone, but they’re not a majority.
I think Goldberg makes an interesting and important connection that 2 very different candidates did strategy wise and I think Democrats should do (irrespective of their ideology/policy positions) in every 2025 and 2026 election. From the article:
“Though his politics are very different from the New York Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s, their strategies are similar — go everywhere, make voters feel heard and maintain a relentless focus on the increasingly punishing cost of living.”
Sorry, I don't remember which Goldberg this is and what they ran for. But in terms of partisans being partisan, there aren't many partisan Democrats who would always blame Republicans for things Democrats did or said.
Michelle Goldberg is the journalist who wrote the article, not a candidate. I do agree with you that Democrats are much better able to not be partisan on especially obvious matters. That’s why I said Republicans won’t blame Republicans.
I maybe should have just left out the first part, but I think in some cases it is true for both sides, which is why I said so (look at how many Democrats changed their view on the economy and Tesla after Trump and Musk being in government). Negative partisanship is a hell of a drug that can affect us too.
They have, by now. But the change in opinion came before Trump did anything in office. Let’s call a spade a spade, we too are affected, just not to the degree of the Trump cult.
That makes sense, given what it's being contrasted with. I suppose Democrats are probably no more supportive of completely unfettered trade than before, but I could be wrong.
Let's gooooo!! I wouldn't call this Tilt D, but it's clearly in the Tossup camp and, if forced, I'd say we're slightly favored. Plus I love Cooper - he'd be great in higher office (while avoiding the forbidden topic)...
Those of you who've read my comments in this thread know that I agree that elected officials with serious health conditions and, generally speaking, very old officials whose sudden incapacitation or death would cause serious problems, should retire. But I'd like to challenge those of you who are claiming that the Democrats lost the Presidential election last year because of age. Biden was not on the ballot. Who is younger and healthier, Harris or Trump? I strongly suggest you all reconsider why the election was lost if you think it was because someone who was no longer on the ballot was old.
I think the perception of age was too baked into the election by the time Harris became our nominee. Especially because the reason she became our nominee was Biden fumbling on the debate stage on live TV due to his age. If she had been our presumed nominee since the start of the year rather than the middle of it, I do think that would have changed it and she could have avoided this issue.
Voters think about elections weird, once we get down to it. I'd argue, strongly, that even in a contest between Biden and Trump that Trump was by far the candidate who seemed more debilitated by advanced age. He cannot communicate at all, cannot stand straight, has terrible memory, appears to be suffering from severe mental decline, etc. But because he gets his terrible fake tan and dyes his terrible hair, people will perceive him as either less elderly or even non-elderly.
So, yes it makes no logical sense with Harris as our actual nominee but the zeitgeist of the election was one of democrats=old.
I will maintain that she was given one of the worst conditions possible to become a presidential candidate. The fact that she nearly won despite it all shows that she was a stronger campaigner than she has been given credit for in the aftermath.
I firmly believe that most of the anger over "Biden's age" was really anger that Biden was unable to bring back 2019 (because that was impossible). Trump was voted out in 2020 for much the same reason.
The media spending four years trying to talk a recession into being didn't help, either. (A LOT of moneyed interests thought that the pandemic would usher in another post-2008 economy–i.e., multiple desperate applicants bidding against each other for every shitty job—and were fit to be tied when that didn't happen.)
I don't think Democrats could recover in the span of a few months from putting up a frail incoherent man who bragged about "beating Medicare" though I give Harris credit for trying to steer a ship that was full of water. Harris and other dems spent years claiming everything was fine the debate destroyed that narrative and she had to pick up the pieces and build a campaign in a few months after years of Biden failing to articulate much less defend his policies.
Well reasoned and articulated. Two things can be true - 1) Biden's age wasn't the predominant factor in Trump's in and 2) we should be looking to get younger with our candidates up and down ballot for a litany of reasons...
Touching on something brought up yesterday, I do think this Epstein thing would have some real legs, particularly if Dems really hit Trump over it. Over on r/conservative, which is a group of Trump sycophant goons, they are really upset with Trump over this.
I would say that we should stay out of it as long as they are tearing each other apart over the Epstein files. As soon as we start attacking Trump then his followers will fall in line to attack us. Let them fight.
I still wonder how they think the guy that partied with Epstein, bragged about wanting to date his daughter and how he could sneak into the Miss teen pageant dressing room and how he could do whatever he wants to women because he is a celebrity is the hero in their fable but another chance to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I have a fever and will go to bed in a minute, but in case this wasn't covered, I want you all to see the relevant portions of an email the NAACP sent me:
NAACP VOTING RIGHTS VICTORY: NEW TENNESSEE MAP PROVIDES FAIR REPRESENTATION FOR BLACK VOTERS AFTER LEGAL BATTLE!
When drawing the old voting map in Fayette County, Tennessee, the all-white County Commission ignored warnings from experts about its harm. The Commission also rejected alternative plans that would have lessened the map's racially discriminatory impact.
Although Black voters make up more than a quarter of Fayette County's voting-age population, in 2021, the County Commission drew a map that locked Black voters entirely out of the electoral process.
As a result, NAACP and LDF filed a lawsuit alleging that the 2021 plan diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
AND WE WON!
In response to the legal pressure, public education, and grassroots organizing, local lawmakers unanimously passed a new County Commission electoral map that creates three new majority-Black single-member districts ensuring Black voters can elect candidates of their choice to the County Commission.
The new map will be used in the 2026 election cycle, the first in years that Black communities in Fayette County will have an equal voice when participating in the democratic process.
Why aren't we playing dirty politics and demonizing Texas republicans while hitting the GOP on Epstein? If such a tragedy happened in California or NY, they would have made hundreds of bigoted DEI, Sodom and Gomorrah attacks! It's not like they are faultless, they cut taxes again this year while declining the county's funding request!
Has anyone tried to mock up what a hyper gerrymandered map of California would look like? Republicans only won 9 seats there in 2024. I wonder if it’s possible to get that number much lower.
Davis should not run for senate. He has a far better chance of holding on to NC 1 than he does winning a general election for senate.
Absolutely. The time for needing someone from the eastern plains to win statewide, probably has come and gone.
He has almost no statewide profile. I don't think he'd make even Nickel sweat in the primary.
Adams said Monday that Cuomo is the number one obstacle standing in the way of his reelection and called for him to step aside.
“I think he really should do an analysis and say: Give Eric an opportunity to run against [Zohran],” Adams said during an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
The mayor also revealed Cuomo had called him to ask the same thing.
Mamdani’s victory in the primary has sent the city’s business and real estate circles into a panic, and the November election is unusually crowded for a city whose deep-blue electorate typically picks the next mayor during the Democratic primary.
Polls have consistently shown Cuomo out-perform Adams in a general election. Even a survey with questions that appeared to skew in favor of the incumbent still found Mamdani winning and Adams behind Cuomo by double digits
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/07/game-of-chicken-eric-adams-cuomo-want-each-other-out-of-nyc-mayoral-race-00441398
Better yet, a compromise: Both Cuomo and Adams should acknowledge their rejection by the voters of New York and step aside.
LOL. Adams's number one obstacle is Adams.
The most interesting number here imo:
Only 46% of voters are never Mamdani voters. Which is lower than never Adams voters (51%) and higher than never Cuomo voters (39%).
I kind of expected there to be a majority against Mamdani, so that’s a bit surprising to me. It also suggests a 1 v 1 battle would still probably see Mamdani win, counter to the current narrative of the split field dooming the non-Mamdani vote.
It's all so silly; if the "establishment" could've propped up a non-scandal plagued candidate, they'd probably win easy. It wasn't that hard!
Which is all the more reason why this "Mamdani is THE future of the Democratic Party" nonsense should cease and desist. Hopefully in the long run this serves as a wake up call for Empire State Democrats to shape up.
This is right up there with the nonsense claim that "Bernie Sanders is THE future of the Democratic Party" – despite Bernie never even being a member of the Democratic Party!
Christ, enough left-bashing. Can’t say I approve of the idea that preventing left wins is necessary. I’m not arguing Mamdani is the future or anything but the constant ideological fighting is getting tiring.
Tell that to those who claim that anyone not aligned with Bernie Sanders and "The Squad" is "Republican lite" or "not good enough."
That’s quite hypocritical considering you are implying you would not support Mamdani as the Dem nominee.
Also, not every progressive is like what you’re describing and you know it. It’s not all DSA vs. everyone else.
The choice has been made already. I think the voters should decide what the future of the party is.
Don’t you?
But they decided to endorse the sex creep on "character" and got the result they deserve.
I would have much more sympathy from the moderate/establishment complaints about Mamdani if they had endorsed Lander or Adrienne Adams or someone from that lane of the party without any political/moral baggage and lost. They chose to back Cuomo, so they can reap what they sowed as far as I’m concerned.
Can't like comments from work comp but all this. They all had options most went with the worst option and now are throwing a tantrum. If anything I hope a lot of these idiots who sold their souls to Creepy Cuomo face additional consequences from their constituents.
Adams has a ton of baggage.
Wrong Adams (I made that mistake too a couple times before though!). Adrienne Adams is fine, a normal Dem. I edited the post to avoid future confusion.
Thank you. I’m not a Mamdani guy but the powers that be - who forced Cuomo out, albeit after too long - had Lander, Myrie etc available to them.
Cuomo was obviously the only guy who had a chance to beat Mamdani was the reason they endorsed him. Most of Landers potential voters all jumped on the Zohran train.
If that’s the reason why they did it, they have even less of a reason to complain. Their whole argument right now is that Mamdani is too unserious on policy to get any of what he promised done or that he’s too left wing for voters.
They have policy concerns now (which is fair on its own), but when they backed Cuomo they didn’t use policy at all in their consideration of an endorsement. They did it because they thought he would win. Why the sudden change in priority? Now after the primary has been decided, policy matters again for them?
That just makes them even more hypocritical than they already are.
If the only option to avoid an outcome is worse than the outcome, then there's no good reason to go with that only option.
Cuomo resigned in disgrace. There was no way he was going to make us, or his establishment supporters, look better even if he had won. Unless Mamdani is secretly a serial killer or something, even if wildly incompetent he'd be better for our party than Cuomo.
Most "establishment" Democrats wouldn't care if it weren't for the fact that we have to answer for Mamdani in the rest of the country. Like it or not, Democrats simply aren't. allowed. to. have. extremists.
You’ve become unhinged lately in comments posted on here.
He’s not an extremist no matter how much the Trump party (and obviously some Democrats like yourself) wants him to be. There is no policy he has touted that categorizes him as one. A leftwing Dem? Sure. Extremist? Laughable.
Maybe a suggestion for you to consider: If you’re upset about the GOP using Mamdani to tar Democrats, maybe don’t do their job for them? Just a constructive thought for you to ponder.
Republicans always use left Democrats to tar the whole party with. It’s their bread and butter go-to move. We can’t say that progressives aren’t allowed in the party or allowed to be elected. He won a majority in the primary. Get over it and move on for crying out loud.
Eric Adams the "establishment" choice for mayor undermined Democrats nationally on crime and immigration throughout his term, while being an actual criminal who happily abandoned the party to beg the DOJ to drop charges against him in a corrupt deal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The party can find a way to survive without a compromised "centrist" criminal and/or sex pest as mayor.
What I wonder is whether this could make Cuomo a threat in the general election in spite of the drubbing he took in the primary.
Cuomo will need Adams and Silwa to drop out, which they won't. I'm guessing Adams hits the right wing grifter circuit after his loss.
Probably a fever dream, but I’d love if Mamdani got over 50% in November. That would make everyone complaining zip their lips real quick.
Except for undemocrats...
I don't think Silwa needs to drop out for Adams or Cuomo to win - but one of the two of them needs to...
Why wld a 76yr old run for re-election? Can’t he hear the ‘people’. And, he has health issues. This is what the DCCC has wrought upon us all!!
There's nothing wrong with a 76-year-old running for re-election, especially to the House. Health is a separate issue.
There may be nothing wrong with it, but there’s also not much right either. That’s what I think needs more attention. Good enough doesn’t mean they’re the best it can be. Voters think Democrats are old and weak because our leaders who voters see on their tvs and in person are all old and weak.
It doesn’t matter what they say or what they’ve done, it matters how they say it. Let me go on the record and say I hate that this is true. I think there shouldn’t be an age penalty because the oldest of us (for the most part) has the most experience to garner their wisdom from. Voters don’t see it that way though.
If we want to win, we need to replace as many seniors as possible in office with fresher faces, like Republicans have almost entirely done (even while going further right wing on policy). Despite that, voters still rewarded them with a trifecta to wreak havoc in the country with.
This is the winning mantra needed in order to start clawing back ground with voters and how badly they view our party. It’s not fair, it’s not right, it’s not how it should be, but it is what’s needed. Perception = reality in today’s America. We can either accept that and work to improve or keep doing what we’ve been doing with likely the same results.
You may be onto something, but I believe the overwhelming reason for the election results last year was inflation. I appreciate that you at least regret ageism, because I think many regulars on this board would support a mandatory retirement age of 65, which the Supreme Court annulled in the 1970s as discriminatory, or even, like, 60, and I also believe that I as a 60-year-old who wants to work as a musician as long as I am physically able have a different viewpoint on this than 20-something folks who think of 60-year-olds as ancient grandparents. I will add a caveat that I don't think politicians whose sudden incapacitation or death would be a problem (let alone Supreme Court Justices like Ginsburg) should serve into, like, their 90s, with rare exceptions like former PM Mahathir of Malaysia, but if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s, I'd like to be able to continue performing if I'm up to it like Pablo Casals was.
I don't support term limits or mandatory retirements, but I am fully in support of using age as a campaign message. If you're that old and your wisdom is of value, you need to explain that to the voters every two, four, or six years. If you can't, thanks for your service. That's how democracy is supposed to work.
No disagreement with that.
"If you're that old and your wisdom is of value, you need to explain that to the voters every two, four, or six years."
I would argue that you need to show that, not just during your campaigns, but every day of your elected term – show that your wisdom, combined with energy and willful persistence, makes you an effective fighter.
Age has never been off limits, it's up to the voters to decide if someone is too old.
I think there’s a happy middle ground, I do think inflation was the main driver of 2024 election results, but I also think the Democratic Party is viewed as old and weak by a majority of voters because our representatives look exactly like that and we elected Biden as president. It could theoretically be a 1 time issue for 2024 only, but given polling and how badly our party is viewed I have serious doubts on that.
I also in no way want to carry this argument over to any aspect of life and I don’t personally believe age is an issue. This is just the brutally honest win no matter what it takes position for politics only. I hope older Americans such as yourself do whatever it is that you enjoy, regardless of your age!
Yeah it's hard to miss who the most prominent democrats are to typical low information members of the electorate. They see Sanders, Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer getting the vast majority of headlines.
AOC gets a decent chunk but a lot of it has a subtext of her either being sidelined by the party or that she's different in part because she's young; either way that subtext would strengthen the perspective of our party as old.
We actually do have a decent number of appropriately aged democrats out there. But they're not getting headlines, aren't being promoted often/high enough, aren't taking center stage for the party in ways that less politically informed people will notice.
Replacing old incumbents with younger ones doesn't in and of itself solve the problem but the headlines that break through of "young democrat" will help in aggregate, especially as we get more of them.
Exactly, we’re not talking about us here on TDB. We’re on an election blog arguing about party direction! The people being talked about is the “I don’t pay any attention or research anything, but I still should go vote” people that exist in America.
They are who believe the party is old and weak because when they glance to the tv on a commercial break at home they see old Democrats and young Republicans. Or if they’re at a bar and in the midst of conversations with friends they catch a glimpse of the political program between beers. Perception = reality.
There’s no way to actually quantify the impact, but if the roles were reversed and Democrats had all young reps while Republicans had older reps after just re-electing Trump to a 2nd term, do we think the GOP still would have swept the 2024 elections? Because I think there would be a Democratic trifecta right now if that were the case.
Policy doesn’t matter sadly, perception does. There are extremely uninformed voters that show up every election. Like that one young woman who was upset at Biden ending abortion. Or the person who spends 5 minutes and decides in the voting booth who to vote for and that is their entire political involvement every 4 years who never watches tv or goes to a political rally.
One can only look North to the most similar of countries to America: Canada. Conservatives nominated younger, diverse, more populist candidates in the last election and they would have won handily without Poilievre as leader and the Trump grenade lobbed up from down south. The party gained a ton of seats though despite those anchors based on who they nominated.
When you look like the future, voters of all ideologies are drawn in. When you look like the past, voters of all ideologies are turned off. I wish it weren’t the case though, but I’m not how a majority of voters think of things. I’m educated, I do research on every candidate. I follow politics closely. We already appeal to those types of voters, now we need to try to appeal to the rest of the electorate.
76-year-olds have health issues (often unseen!) that 40- and 50-year olds don't. We've had 3 deaths this year that could've stopped Trump's dumb bill.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think it could have stopped it? It passed 218-214, so even 3 more Democratic “No”s, still would have passed. I agree with your point though about the deaths losing 3 votes and maybe theoretically convincing 1 of the wavering Republicans to vote no, or a House race that flipped or didn’t flip making it a failed tie vote after a different 2024 election result in a race.
Because no one else could possibly represent a safe blue seat and the whiners just need to accept that the Democratic caucus will always be handicapped by multiple easily avoidable vacancies.
But he voted for the bill, right?
SC is going to be interesting for the next few years. We’ve got presidential candidates dropping in already, gubernatorial candidates announcing, municipal and county elections happening. What more could you possibly ask for? It’s a political junkie’s dream. Maybe one day we’ll get democracy too.
Demographically speaking, even though SC has a large African American voting bloc, it's still one of the states with the lowest share of people with college degrees. If that changes due to economic diversification, it could easily become another Georgia.
Hmm. It would be interesting to look at the educational background of the in migration over the last 10-15 years.
Well, a Democrat won a special election for Georgetown Co school board here today. Officially non-partisan, but he didn't shy from being a D.
And it's official: Dan Osborn is back, running (as an independent again) against Sen. Pete Ricketts this time in Nebraska!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/independent-dan-osborn-launches-another-nebraska-senate-run-rcna215998
I liked Osborn a lot last time, and I look forward to another run from him.
Same, I wish him luck
Terrific news
I really hope he’s back channel cleared with the party that Democrats won’t be running a candidate that splits the vote, because if someone runs, the upset potential goes from low to impossible. That said, I think in an I vs R race, he can pull off a miracle without Trump on the ballot. We will see how his campaign unfolds, but I’m very excited he’s giving it another shot!
Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Dem Chair supports him. It was noted in the Politico article.
I didn’t see a link for the Politico article in the NBC article. Thank you for confirming that for me.
So glad the Kleebs are still around, making an impact. Maybe we'll see one of them run again someday.
I too liked him a lot, Dems should follow his template in red states: independent, working class, socially conservative on issues other than abortion, economically populist, anti-elite; rather than trying to run the same old 2006 playbook of GOP lite neoliberal "Blue Dogs" which has seen less and less success over the years especially since 2010.
Why single out abortion if being conservative on it is the thing that could win a Dem, or a non-Republican, a seat?
Because increasingly base Democratic voters - even in red states - won't stand for anti choice candidates. The fact that even Bob Casey Jr called out David McCormick for wanting to ban abortion outright shows that it is nonnegotiable.
Not every state or district is the same. Competing in Nebraska and Pennsylvania are two different things.
Even in red states it’s a losing argument. At least in Democratic primaries. Doug Jones was pro choice, not anti choice in the mold of Howell Heflin and Tom Bevill.
What primary did Jones lose?
Last I checked, most people in Nebraska are pro-choice, even though it's a red state. Neighboring Kansas is the same way.
They did pass restrictions via ballot last year. https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/11/06/nebraska-passes-abortion-restrictions-amendment-bucking-national-trend/
That’s a very complicated case though, that goes far deeper than the headline (or likely article, haven’t read it, guessing here). It wasn’t just a pro life vs pro choice question and the context is extremely important to the end result.
Republicans added a ton of ballot candy to make it pass and it only barely did. I also think there was a sizeable impact on the amendment passing with Nebraska’s current law of a 12 week abortion ban with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest.
Most of the states that had pro choice ballot amendments passing were under a complete abortion ban or complete abortion ban with those 3 exceptions, which was viewed as extreme by most voters (even conservatives!), so they opted for a “not this” choice. Which in those other cases was the pro choice case.
Whereas in Nebraska I don’t think there ever was a “not this” vote, because an extreme abortion ban didn’t exist in the state. I think a 3 month abortion ban with those exceptions is where a majority of voters are on the issue. The GOP there were extremely smart to take an inch instead of a mile, so voters said it was good enough as is.
I don't think being pro-choice is a death knell to run in the state but I do think Nebraska is one of the most anti-choice states in the country and the issue is not as much of a winner as it would be in another 40 states or so including its neighbor to the south. I'd have to dig around to confirm but I'm pretty sure a lot of 50 state polling over the years has shown this.
In 2024, Nebraska had competing ballot measures. Based on the results, the will of Nebraska voters on abortion was clear as mud, but the result was against abortion rights.
By 51%-49%, voters rejected Initiative 439, which would have amended the state Constitution to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability, or when necessary to safeguard the health of the pregnant patient. But by 55%-45%, voters adopted Initiative 434, an abortion-restrictions amendment that bans most abortions after the first trimester, with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. It also gave the Legislature the authority to pass additional restrictions, up to a complete ban.
Current law allows abortions up to 12 weeks.
"Calculations by The Downballot show that the 6th backed Donald Trump 57-42 last year. However, Beshear's landslide 60-40 victory here against Cameron has Democrats hoping for an upset."
After the 2018 wave wasn't /quite/ enough to oust Barr, and our 2020 candidate barely cleared 40%, the KDP went back to not really contesting the seat in 2022 and 2024. This year is different because Barr isn't running, we have a candidate who's used to campaigning, and is 2 for 3 in close elections for a seat that Democrats aren't expected to win in a walk, the KDP is contesting the seat, and the DCCC was targeting Barr even before he decided to go for Senate. That's what has me hoping for a win.
Vote him out to old. Need younger democrats
Rep. John Larson has been an outspoken champion of clean energy, with a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters. He also has 100% ratings each from Planned Parenthood and NARAL and a 94% rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Assuming his health holds up, it would be a mistake for Connecticut 1 voters to replace him, merely because he is in his 70s, with someone whose only experience is service on a local school board.
But the point is, it's not merely because he's in his 70s but more because he's had 2 health incidents.
Everyone has health incidents. If he is able to get beyond them, he deserves support.
He had two health incidents in 3 months. We've already had 3 Democratic reps die since November. Frankly, I'm not putting too much stock in "if he's able to get beyond them."
Also, I'm not super onboard with the idea that it'd be a mistake to elect "someone whose only experience is service on a local school board." Everyone starts somewhere; I think it's a mistake to write off a candidate because of a perceived lack of experience. There have been plenty of successful officials who didn't have any electoral experience before a congressional run.
I would argue that being at the local level puts them more in touch with the needs of their constituents rather than someone who's been in Washington for 20 years.
Reps can die at any age. For the hazards of trusting someone with no electoral experience, look no further than the current POTUS.
All of the current vacancies were politicians in their 70s with health problems. When has trusting that politicians are immortal beings ever blown up in our face ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
What is the cut-off age for firing mortal leaders? 70? 60? The fastest-growing age cohort in the United States is those over 85. The group over 60 is also growing rapidly. They deserve representation.
And I'm sure that many would say that a first term Senator whose only experience was as a State Senator and Constitutional Law professor wasn't ready to be POTUS.
At least Obama had national legislative experience and considerable knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.
I agree with you. And recent service on a school board could help a member provide some leadership on education issues. Senator Bennet of Colorado was the incumbent Denver Board of Ed Chairman, and everyone would surely admit that he's been a completely competent senator.
Heck one of the best current senators very famously started her political career as a mom in tennis shoes. Is anyone arguing Patty Murray shouldn’t have run?
Well it depends on the type of tennis shoes. You need good arch support when you're running, after all.
It's not a problem until it isn't and sure... Someone in their 30s and 40s can have a freak health incident but when margins are THIS tight do we really want to gamble with the health of a septuagenarian with health issues when someone whose baseline is all of those things and maybe even more progressive. These people are replaceable we need to stop pretending they aren't.
Who was the last Dem rep. in their 30/40s to die in office?
It looks like Rep. Mark Takai (D-HI) he was 49. He had announced he wouldn't run for reelection months earlier after a cancer diagnosis and died in July of 2016. You have to go back to the 80s to find the next rep that died in their 40s Rep. Mickey Leland (D-TX) who died in a plane crash.
I think there was a car accident or something in the past few years wasn’t there? Ok, not a federal rep, but yeah in Connecticut a previous recently elected lawmaker died after a wrong way driver car crash in 2023, he was only 39.
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/06/1147346501/a-rising-star-in-connecticut-politics-dies-in-a-collision-with-a-wrong-way-drive
But the point behind your question is poignant, there aren’t many and I’d hazard a guess that none involved health complications. That said, for a very long time of US history, it was run almost entirely by old people, so young Dem reps never got into office in the first place to even have a chance to die while in it.
Yeah not trying to be morbid but the whole "it happens equally to every age group" argument is absurd on its face.
Even talking about close calls and you've got Gabby Giffords when she was 41. We've had that m any in less than a year.
I'd argue that's not the right way of looking at it.
What would his realistic replacement's stances be? If any realistic successor is roughly as good or better on those issues then those are not good reasons for him to avoid retirement.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, points out that even if Republican voters lose access to health care, it’s far from a given that they’ll hold their party responsible. “Even if it’s clearly the Republicans who’ve done it, they’ll find a reason to blame the Democrats,” he said.
https://archive.ph/Q4uzh NYT: Everyone Hates This Bill. Dan Osborn Could Make Republicans Pay for It. - Michelle Goldberg
Partisans are partisan., they’ll never acknowledge fault and never blame Republicans as they are Republican voters. We can’t win them, we’re not aiming for them. They’re gone, but they’re not a majority.
I think Goldberg makes an interesting and important connection that 2 very different candidates did strategy wise and I think Democrats should do (irrespective of their ideology/policy positions) in every 2025 and 2026 election. From the article:
“Though his politics are very different from the New York Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s, their strategies are similar — go everywhere, make voters feel heard and maintain a relentless focus on the increasingly punishing cost of living.”
Sorry, I don't remember which Goldberg this is and what they ran for. But in terms of partisans being partisan, there aren't many partisan Democrats who would always blame Republicans for things Democrats did or said.
Michelle Goldberg is the journalist who wrote the article, not a candidate. I do agree with you that Democrats are much better able to not be partisan on especially obvious matters. That’s why I said Republicans won’t blame Republicans.
I maybe should have just left out the first part, but I think in some cases it is true for both sides, which is why I said so (look at how many Democrats changed their view on the economy and Tesla after Trump and Musk being in government). Negative partisanship is a hell of a drug that can affect us too.
But Trump and Musk -have- damaged the economy, even if not as much as quickly as I would have expected.
They have, by now. But the change in opinion came before Trump did anything in office. Let’s call a spade a spade, we too are affected, just not to the degree of the Trump cult.
I didn't believe the economy became bad immediately after Trump took office, so I don't accept that I think that way.
Another example is free trade, Democrats approval of free trade increased dramatically since Trump took office.
That makes sense, given what it's being contrasted with. I suppose Democrats are probably no more supportive of completely unfettered trade than before, but I could be wrong.
Michelle Goldberg is a progressive New York Times opinion journalist.
NC-Sen: It's happening.
https://x.com/NewsWire_US/status/1942678409496117724
YES!
Let's gooooo!! I wouldn't call this Tilt D, but it's clearly in the Tossup camp and, if forced, I'd say we're slightly favored. Plus I love Cooper - he'd be great in higher office (while avoiding the forbidden topic)...
Those of you who've read my comments in this thread know that I agree that elected officials with serious health conditions and, generally speaking, very old officials whose sudden incapacitation or death would cause serious problems, should retire. But I'd like to challenge those of you who are claiming that the Democrats lost the Presidential election last year because of age. Biden was not on the ballot. Who is younger and healthier, Harris or Trump? I strongly suggest you all reconsider why the election was lost if you think it was because someone who was no longer on the ballot was old.
I think the perception of age was too baked into the election by the time Harris became our nominee. Especially because the reason she became our nominee was Biden fumbling on the debate stage on live TV due to his age. If she had been our presumed nominee since the start of the year rather than the middle of it, I do think that would have changed it and she could have avoided this issue.
Voters think about elections weird, once we get down to it. I'd argue, strongly, that even in a contest between Biden and Trump that Trump was by far the candidate who seemed more debilitated by advanced age. He cannot communicate at all, cannot stand straight, has terrible memory, appears to be suffering from severe mental decline, etc. But because he gets his terrible fake tan and dyes his terrible hair, people will perceive him as either less elderly or even non-elderly.
So, yes it makes no logical sense with Harris as our actual nominee but the zeitgeist of the election was one of democrats=old.
I will maintain that she was given one of the worst conditions possible to become a presidential candidate. The fact that she nearly won despite it all shows that she was a stronger campaigner than she has been given credit for in the aftermath.
I firmly believe that most of the anger over "Biden's age" was really anger that Biden was unable to bring back 2019 (because that was impossible). Trump was voted out in 2020 for much the same reason.
The media spending four years trying to talk a recession into being didn't help, either. (A LOT of moneyed interests thought that the pandemic would usher in another post-2008 economy–i.e., multiple desperate applicants bidding against each other for every shitty job—and were fit to be tied when that didn't happen.)
I don't think Democrats could recover in the span of a few months from putting up a frail incoherent man who bragged about "beating Medicare" though I give Harris credit for trying to steer a ship that was full of water. Harris and other dems spent years claiming everything was fine the debate destroyed that narrative and she had to pick up the pieces and build a campaign in a few months after years of Biden failing to articulate much less defend his policies.
Well reasoned and articulated. Two things can be true - 1) Biden's age wasn't the predominant factor in Trump's in and 2) we should be looking to get younger with our candidates up and down ballot for a litany of reasons...
Touching on something brought up yesterday, I do think this Epstein thing would have some real legs, particularly if Dems really hit Trump over it. Over on r/conservative, which is a group of Trump sycophant goons, they are really upset with Trump over this.
I would say that we should stay out of it as long as they are tearing each other apart over the Epstein files. As soon as we start attacking Trump then his followers will fall in line to attack us. Let them fight.
His followers will fall in line soon enough, once it falls out the news cycle, which is any minute now. Better to keep it in the cycle, I think.
I still wonder how they think the guy that partied with Epstein, bragged about wanting to date his daughter and how he could sneak into the Miss teen pageant dressing room and how he could do whatever he wants to women because he is a celebrity is the hero in their fable but another chance to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Misogyny.
I have a fever and will go to bed in a minute, but in case this wasn't covered, I want you all to see the relevant portions of an email the NAACP sent me:
NAACP VOTING RIGHTS VICTORY: NEW TENNESSEE MAP PROVIDES FAIR REPRESENTATION FOR BLACK VOTERS AFTER LEGAL BATTLE!
When drawing the old voting map in Fayette County, Tennessee, the all-white County Commission ignored warnings from experts about its harm. The Commission also rejected alternative plans that would have lessened the map's racially discriminatory impact.
Although Black voters make up more than a quarter of Fayette County's voting-age population, in 2021, the County Commission drew a map that locked Black voters entirely out of the electoral process.
As a result, NAACP and LDF filed a lawsuit alleging that the 2021 plan diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
AND WE WON!
In response to the legal pressure, public education, and grassroots organizing, local lawmakers unanimously passed a new County Commission electoral map that creates three new majority-Black single-member districts ensuring Black voters can elect candidates of their choice to the County Commission.
The new map will be used in the 2026 election cycle, the first in years that Black communities in Fayette County will have an equal voice when participating in the democratic process.
Why aren't we playing dirty politics and demonizing Texas republicans while hitting the GOP on Epstein? If such a tragedy happened in California or NY, they would have made hundreds of bigoted DEI, Sodom and Gomorrah attacks! It's not like they are faultless, they cut taxes again this year while declining the county's funding request!
It’s a question I’ve been asking. Might as well bang your head against the wall.
Has anyone tried to mock up what a hyper gerrymandered map of California would look like? Republicans only won 9 seats there in 2024. I wonder if it’s possible to get that number much lower.
(3-4 seats seems realistic I guess, but more?)