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.
Sadly most are. Too many learned the wrong lessons from 2008. The two lessons they took out of it were #1. Obama won because he ran as a "bold "progressive"" and then "betrayed the "progressive" movement" and #2. if the country can elect a black man for President, the country can elect a socialist for President. Until they stop this nonsense, I'm going to keep bashing them and bashing them and bashing them again. Deal with it.
Do you have a source for “most are”? Because to me you are making blanket assumptions about entire groups with no evidence, or alternatively anecdotal evidence.
God you are acting so childish. “I’m going to keep bashing them” — so you’re admitting you have an agenda. Fantastic.
Yes I do "have an agenda." I want Democrats in government. Most DSA types are opposed to Democrats being in government because they won't be able to complain as much without looking stupid.
Another claim made without evidence. Believe it or not, the DSA is not a monolith. There are frequent internal disagreements in the group, and some progressives have even quit due to internal bullshit.
And again, not all progressives are DSA. I’m not - I hate the DSA, even though I support Mamdani. I find then too rigid ideologically myself, actually. Curiously, you did not actually present evidence of your “most are” claim regarding progressives, which leads me to believe you are potentially arguing in bad faith.
Also, by agenda, I meant an intra party ideological agenda. You do not want to unite the party, you want everyone to agree with your centrist beliefs. I can and have voted for centrists in general election situations, such as SPM in NY-17. Wouldn’t you do the same the other way around?
Running as a “bold progressive” sounds like a stretch for the actual campaign Obama ran. In fact, besides the intent to reform Wall Street and bridging the gap between races, Obama’s campaign was more aspirational to the younger generation at the time (me and other of my friends included along with older millennials). It may have been considered “progressive” back in 2008 but Obama’s presidential campaign otherwise mirrored in a similar way what JFK did in his 1960 campaign.
A friend of mine, a former Green Party member, supported and voted for Obama back in 2008 when he was still in the party. However, besides the issue of the Iraq War and Wall Street, my friend didn’t exactly view Obama as a progressive.
Crazy to think that we're far enough removed from that time that this is less obvious.
By far the biggest advantage Obama had in 2008 was his opposition to the Iraq War, that he had never voted for it. The war was incredibly unpopular. Especially with people that were willing to vote for dems. Even more so with younger voters.
I'd outright state that Obama would not have become president without the Iraq War and its political consequences.
I didn't say he ran a "bold progressive" campaign. Especially since on several issues like health care and immigration he was actually to the RIGHT of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm saying that's how he was viewed by many hardline "progressives." They voted for him because #1. he was "not Hillary", #2. he said the word "change" a lot and #3. he opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning. Those factors made him look more left wing than he actually was. For the record, I voted for him, not Clinton in the 2008 primary.
You said "Obama won because he ran as a "bold progressive." If I'm not mistaken, that's the same thing as saying he ran a bold progressive campaign.
Anyway, that's really a minor quibble but I get what you're saying. It may have been at the time back in 2008 Obama's campaign but yes, I believe he was hyped a lot as a progressive at the time. However, I was also in my late 20's and even plenty of my liberal views were still evolving at the time so at the time I probably looked at Obama as a progressive then.
That said, since this thread overall has been primarily NYC Mayoral Race, I don't intend to add more to this. Mamdani is a fresh face in a mayoral race like in NYC but we still have the general election to deal with. I'd rather let those in NYC comment more as they know more about the race than I do.
I think you need to take a step back here. I am squarely in the moderate wing of the Democratic party, definitely would not have voted for Mamdani in the primary and have little tolerance for the squad. With that said, you are being a bit of a jerk and not engaging in a productive manner. We can have this (necessary) debate while still remembering that we're all on the same team here....
Are you referring to me or another person? I am referencing James Trout's comment about Obama's campaign, not at all trying to interject into the debate over Mamdani vs. the Democratic Party. As far as I am trying to understand about the dynamics of the NYC Mayoral Race, I'm keeping a neutral tone until I learn more on how things play out in the general election.
If I believe Obama wasn't running a bold progressive campaign or came across as a bold progressive, that doesn't mean I am attacking him for purity reasons. I am mainly saying that in retrospect, I don't believe he was a progressive in his campaign so much as a uniter of all races and different points of view. The image I saw in his campaign transcended politics and made it more appealing to crossover voters (my Green Party friend included). Don't forget that William Buckley's son and Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan ended up supporting Obama's candidacy back in 2008. I don't know if a progressive in the vein of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren campaign would have appealed to them but regardless, I remember Obama's presidential campaign quite fondly and looking back again, it was the right campaign at the time. Remember, we are talking about the campaign, not the person himself. Obama as it turns out ended up doing quite progressive things as POTUS, including cracking down on for-profit education institutions, Affordable Healthcare Act, and even Dodd Frank as well as normalizing relations with Cuba.
That said, as a reminder, please don't attack another member such as myself if you don't agree with the argument. Please try to be more respectful of people's arguments and allow them to defend their arguments before you interject. Thank you.
This was directed at James Trout - apologies if it appeared to be in reference to you. That said, I wasn't attacking someone's arguments (in fact, I predominantly agree with his argument) but rather telling him that his tone and aggression are out of place..
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.
Quite honestly, it depends on just how incompetent he might be. Governor Spitzer resigned in disgrace and then we got Patterson, who was totally incompetent and didn't want the job. Then we missed Spitzer, but his selection of Patterson as Lieutenant Governor was his responsibility and probably the worst thing he did as a governor candidate and governor.
Patterson is probably my favorite Governor, precisely because he wasn't a power hungry striver and just happened to fall into the job. I totally would have voted for him in 2010 over Cuomo.
I thought he might be in a little over his head at the time, but I was willing to give him a chance to grow. And in hindsight, I'd still absolutely trade one term of an incompetent Governor Patterson for zero terms of Governor Cuomo without a doubt.
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.
The reason Republicans can have extremists while Democrats cannot is because their extremists reinforce their party’s central tenet: government sucks. Our extremists undermine our party’s central tenet: government is good. We do ourselves no favors by pretending this double standard doesn’t exist and by adjusting ourselves to that fact. And sorry but by the standards of most of the rest of the USA, Mamdani IS considered an extremist. The Cold War may be over, but the majority of Americans remain uncomfortable with politicians who call themselves socialists in ANY form.
"Our extremists undermine our party’s central tenet: government is good"
I think the tenet is, good government. Government is necessary to provide for the good of the people and government corrupted by big money and special interests is bad.
And because the tenet is "government is good" Democrats are actually expected to deliver on promises and services and for the services to be good and efficient. Not to mention they must positively impact as many people as possible. It's not just an election slogan. If Mamdani becomes Mayor and cannot deliver the goods as promised, rest assured he will face negative consequences should he run again in 2029.
He's promised a bunch of stuff. I have the same concerns as you do, but he hasn't even won a general election yet, so it's way premature to write him off.
Maybe if enough standard democrats treated Mamdani as normal the problem would go away? If you treat someone as extreme and then you are associated with that person, yes, other people will judge you for it. They cannot control the association but they can control what they say in public.
Notice how senate dems treat Sanders as a normal member of their caucus and aren't constantly forced to account for his ideology despite it being meaningfully to their left. If they were constantly berating him and calling him out they would be creating the problem, not avoiding it.
The group doing themselves a disservice here is not the progressive wing of the party.
Except when we are expected to account for his ideology. It is much easier to trash the Democratic Party as "socialist" because of the fact that Bernie Sanders calls himself one. At least at the Presidential level.
Ah, yes, that wonderful time before Sanders gained prominence when republicans didn't attack democrats as socialists. I remember it vividly.
... You and I both know that you're claiming a temporal demarcation that doesn't exist. That's before even getting into the fact that even if it did exist, it's a purely reductive attempt at a gotcha while willfully missing the whole point of my comment.
Democrats are a socialist party, that's the whole point, we're the party of the people. Let's just embrace that instead of hiding behind "politically correct" language that obfuscates the obvious.
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.
Nobody denies here that the "establishment" messed up. The question is whether or not Mamdani is THE future of the Democratic Party. Given the fact that he couldn't even obtain a majority of the Democratic primary vote in one of the most left wing cities in the USA, my answer remains no.
That's the question you're setting up, but for whom is that the question? I don't think that the enthusiasm about his success in the primaries and suggestions that aspects of his appeal and campaigning can be emulated are tantamount to claiming that "Mamdani is THE future of the Democratic Party".
He did obtain a majority. Literally the whole point of adopting ranked choice voting is to insure that the winner has a majority.
And before you come back with something about not getting a majority of first-choice votes, Mamdani+Lander easily clears 50%. There was a clear first-preference majority for Mamdani's faction.
Right, although I was a Lander supporter and only grudgingly ranked Mamdani 4th. But I know I was an exception, and my vote still counted against Cuomo, which was my backup plan if I couldn't get someone I really supported to win the primary.
Lol. Bill DeBlasio is the only "left wing" Democrat who has ever been elected NYC mayor in my lifetime. Maybe you can count Dinkins, who only won by 2 points in 1989.
Dinkins doesn't count, in my opinion. He was the absolute epitome of a dull establishment functionary who did fine until he had to choose whether to represent everyone or favor his community as Mayor.
Fair enough. I only mention Dinkins because he seems to be at least slightly to the left of Koch and Adams, the only other Democrats that have been elected NYC mayor since 1980.
Right. Point being he was a disaster, they screwed up and their answer to that this time was a creepy sex pest who resigned in disgrace. Hopefully both Adams and Cuomo are making fools of themselves in the private sector this time next year if they're not in jail for their various crimes and the politicians (in NYC more likely than elsewhere) who threw Cuomo's victims under the bus face consequences in their own elections.
I don't think this is true - lots of moderate / "establishment" Dems (including my mom, and me if I still lived in NYC) were in the Garcia camp. Frankly, she's better than anyone on offer this year...
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.
In Canada there are no primary elections, the parties select their own candidates, and candidates will regularly "parachute" into ridings they aren't from. It makes shuffling out the old for the new a lot easier.
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.
Kansas which is a similar state passed an abortion rights ballot measure. The fetal viability ballot measure failed by just one point in Nebraska while the 3 month ban passed. It was sold not as a restriction but as an alternative.
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.
There is no age cutoff, no one here is arguing that. But continuing to anoint people to their seats uncontested should be a thing of the past. Democrats need to fight for our voters and prove it over and over again, then they need to run real general election campaigns even if they know they’ll win by 50 if they did nothing.
That means we always get the top of their game Democrats to lead us everywhere. I’m not expecting every old person to lose to a younger challenger, I’m not even wanting that to happen personally. What I and I think most of us are advocating for, is to challenge our current leaders instead of just punching our ballot for whoever is currently in office. We could have a better option or maybe not. Our voters decide that!
The weak old incumbents not doing their job to the best of their ability will lose. The ones who are doing their job to the best of their ability will stay in office. We aren’t suddenly going to have no one over the age of 60 or 70 in our governments, federal or local. But we are going to (and do very much need to) cull those who aren’t doing what a majority our voters want.
That’s the only way we get the best of us to lead us at all times. If our voters in the future decide to start electing older people when younger representatives are the annointed ones, I would support that 100% even though that wouldn’t be my preference. I still feel in that hypothetical future I case the young reps should be challenged even if it’s not by who I prefer.
My mantra is entirely “fight it out in the primary, come together in the general”. I don’t really care what ideology or age of a challenger is. By all means people should run to the right, left or center of the currently elected reps, however they think a majority of Democrats are in their district/s or state/s.
Just because I’m personally progressive, doesn’t mean I’m against Democrats challenging an incumbent to the right. Or against an older Democrat primarying a younger one. If someone feels they can do a better job and earn our voters support, they should run! My goal is that there is actually a challenge, not so much what direction/type of challenge it ends up being.
Competition = strongest Democrats win = best election results.
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.
Absolutely agree. At the same time I don’t think they were making that argument though so I think it’s important not to put words in others mouths as that makes already difficult and uncomfortable arguments or debates, impossible to be had.
These are questions and perspectives that all need to be read in their own words in order to have a constructive and beneficial conversation with one another on here.
I mean, no, it totally isn't absurd, and what it means is that anyone with really threatening health problems should retire from electoral offices that really matter. Particularly after the Covid epidemic, we should be aware that young people also died and were incapacitated by it.
Not trying to be harsh but we lost an election pretending age isn't a factor. I'm fine with people serving into their 70s and 80s if they are capable but i'm not going to pretend people half their age are just as likely to quickly develop health problems and die.
I'm not pretending that, either. But absolutes are not real life. Elliott Carter did distinguished new work after he turned 100, whereas there are people who are put into the memory care unit I work at with tragic early onset dementia in their 60s.
I went back 25 years instead of 50. Going back to Jan 1 2000, there have been 34 representatives that died in office. Two were under the age of 50. Luke Letlow, who died from Covid complications before inauguration at 41, and Mark Takai who died of cancer at 49.
The average age is 69.4, and the median is 69.5. Half of them (17) were over the age of 70. Three fourths (27) were over the age of 60.
I didn't catch anyone that resigned and then died shortly afterwards.
I tried to go back to 1975, but I got bored. The numbers do look substantially younger in the additional data I did get through, though. I'd guess the average 1975-2000 is likely in the 55-60 range. Presumably a consequence of congress members retiring at younger ages in the past.
Replying to myself, I missed the word "equally". Obviously, older cohorts die sooner on average and have more health problems on average. I suppose the 15-25 cohort also gets into more accidents, violent incidents and suicide attempts than people in the next-older cohorts, but everyone would accept the general point on average.
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.
You are not everyone, I never said you specifically did this, I said democrats did and the evidence is clear on that one. That you feel the need to defend yourself from criticism not directed at you, but instead acknowledging that this does affect Democrats even if it doesn’t affect you, doesn’t mean that you are what all Democrats are like. I said us as in reference to Democrats, not you and me as users.
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.
Sadly most are. Too many learned the wrong lessons from 2008. The two lessons they took out of it were #1. Obama won because he ran as a "bold "progressive"" and then "betrayed the "progressive" movement" and #2. if the country can elect a black man for President, the country can elect a socialist for President. Until they stop this nonsense, I'm going to keep bashing them and bashing them and bashing them again. Deal with it.
Do you have a source for “most are”? Because to me you are making blanket assumptions about entire groups with no evidence, or alternatively anecdotal evidence.
God you are acting so childish. “I’m going to keep bashing them” — so you’re admitting you have an agenda. Fantastic.
Yes I do "have an agenda." I want Democrats in government. Most DSA types are opposed to Democrats being in government because they won't be able to complain as much without looking stupid.
Another claim made without evidence. Believe it or not, the DSA is not a monolith. There are frequent internal disagreements in the group, and some progressives have even quit due to internal bullshit.
And again, not all progressives are DSA. I’m not - I hate the DSA, even though I support Mamdani. I find then too rigid ideologically myself, actually. Curiously, you did not actually present evidence of your “most are” claim regarding progressives, which leads me to believe you are potentially arguing in bad faith.
Also, by agenda, I meant an intra party ideological agenda. You do not want to unite the party, you want everyone to agree with your centrist beliefs. I can and have voted for centrists in general election situations, such as SPM in NY-17. Wouldn’t you do the same the other way around?
Running for Mayor of New York City is certainly a weird way to avoid being in government.
Running as a “bold progressive” sounds like a stretch for the actual campaign Obama ran. In fact, besides the intent to reform Wall Street and bridging the gap between races, Obama’s campaign was more aspirational to the younger generation at the time (me and other of my friends included along with older millennials). It may have been considered “progressive” back in 2008 but Obama’s presidential campaign otherwise mirrored in a similar way what JFK did in his 1960 campaign.
A friend of mine, a former Green Party member, supported and voted for Obama back in 2008 when he was still in the party. However, besides the issue of the Iraq War and Wall Street, my friend didn’t exactly view Obama as a progressive.
The Iraq war/wars of choice doctrine was a big part too for young people in that election.
Crazy to think that we're far enough removed from that time that this is less obvious.
By far the biggest advantage Obama had in 2008 was his opposition to the Iraq War, that he had never voted for it. The war was incredibly unpopular. Especially with people that were willing to vote for dems. Even more so with younger voters.
I'd outright state that Obama would not have become president without the Iraq War and its political consequences.
I didn't say he ran a "bold progressive" campaign. Especially since on several issues like health care and immigration he was actually to the RIGHT of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I'm saying that's how he was viewed by many hardline "progressives." They voted for him because #1. he was "not Hillary", #2. he said the word "change" a lot and #3. he opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning. Those factors made him look more left wing than he actually was. For the record, I voted for him, not Clinton in the 2008 primary.
You said "Obama won because he ran as a "bold progressive." If I'm not mistaken, that's the same thing as saying he ran a bold progressive campaign.
Anyway, that's really a minor quibble but I get what you're saying. It may have been at the time back in 2008 Obama's campaign but yes, I believe he was hyped a lot as a progressive at the time. However, I was also in my late 20's and even plenty of my liberal views were still evolving at the time so at the time I probably looked at Obama as a progressive then.
That said, since this thread overall has been primarily NYC Mayoral Race, I don't intend to add more to this. Mamdani is a fresh face in a mayoral race like in NYC but we still have the general election to deal with. I'd rather let those in NYC comment more as they know more about the race than I do.
I think you need to take a step back here. I am squarely in the moderate wing of the Democratic party, definitely would not have voted for Mamdani in the primary and have little tolerance for the squad. With that said, you are being a bit of a jerk and not engaging in a productive manner. We can have this (necessary) debate while still remembering that we're all on the same team here....
Are you referring to me or another person? I am referencing James Trout's comment about Obama's campaign, not at all trying to interject into the debate over Mamdani vs. the Democratic Party. As far as I am trying to understand about the dynamics of the NYC Mayoral Race, I'm keeping a neutral tone until I learn more on how things play out in the general election.
If I believe Obama wasn't running a bold progressive campaign or came across as a bold progressive, that doesn't mean I am attacking him for purity reasons. I am mainly saying that in retrospect, I don't believe he was a progressive in his campaign so much as a uniter of all races and different points of view. The image I saw in his campaign transcended politics and made it more appealing to crossover voters (my Green Party friend included). Don't forget that William Buckley's son and Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan ended up supporting Obama's candidacy back in 2008. I don't know if a progressive in the vein of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren campaign would have appealed to them but regardless, I remember Obama's presidential campaign quite fondly and looking back again, it was the right campaign at the time. Remember, we are talking about the campaign, not the person himself. Obama as it turns out ended up doing quite progressive things as POTUS, including cracking down on for-profit education institutions, Affordable Healthcare Act, and even Dodd Frank as well as normalizing relations with Cuba.
That said, as a reminder, please don't attack another member such as myself if you don't agree with the argument. Please try to be more respectful of people's arguments and allow them to defend their arguments before you interject. Thank you.
This was directed at James Trout - apologies if it appeared to be in reference to you. That said, I wasn't attacking someone's arguments (in fact, I predominantly agree with his argument) but rather telling him that his tone and aggression are out of place..
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.
Quite honestly, it depends on just how incompetent he might be. Governor Spitzer resigned in disgrace and then we got Patterson, who was totally incompetent and didn't want the job. Then we missed Spitzer, but his selection of Patterson as Lieutenant Governor was his responsibility and probably the worst thing he did as a governor candidate and governor.
Patterson is probably my favorite Governor, precisely because he wasn't a power hungry striver and just happened to fall into the job. I totally would have voted for him in 2010 over Cuomo.
He was totally incompetent, as I recall.
I thought he might be in a little over his head at the time, but I was willing to give him a chance to grow. And in hindsight, I'd still absolutely trade one term of an incompetent Governor Patterson for zero terms of Governor Cuomo without a doubt.
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.
The reason Republicans can have extremists while Democrats cannot is because their extremists reinforce their party’s central tenet: government sucks. Our extremists undermine our party’s central tenet: government is good. We do ourselves no favors by pretending this double standard doesn’t exist and by adjusting ourselves to that fact. And sorry but by the standards of most of the rest of the USA, Mamdani IS considered an extremist. The Cold War may be over, but the majority of Americans remain uncomfortable with politicians who call themselves socialists in ANY form.
"Our extremists undermine our party’s central tenet: government is good"
I think the tenet is, good government. Government is necessary to provide for the good of the people and government corrupted by big money and special interests is bad.
And because the tenet is "government is good" Democrats are actually expected to deliver on promises and services and for the services to be good and efficient. Not to mention they must positively impact as many people as possible. It's not just an election slogan. If Mamdani becomes Mayor and cannot deliver the goods as promised, rest assured he will face negative consequences should he run again in 2029.
Wait, I thought you said that was an extremist position? I’m confused - what is a left extremist position to you? “Too much government”?
He's promised a bunch of stuff. I have the same concerns as you do, but he hasn't even won a general election yet, so it's way premature to write him off.
This is one of those self-creating issues.
Maybe if enough standard democrats treated Mamdani as normal the problem would go away? If you treat someone as extreme and then you are associated with that person, yes, other people will judge you for it. They cannot control the association but they can control what they say in public.
Notice how senate dems treat Sanders as a normal member of their caucus and aren't constantly forced to account for his ideology despite it being meaningfully to their left. If they were constantly berating him and calling him out they would be creating the problem, not avoiding it.
The group doing themselves a disservice here is not the progressive wing of the party.
Except when we are expected to account for his ideology. It is much easier to trash the Democratic Party as "socialist" because of the fact that Bernie Sanders calls himself one. At least at the Presidential level.
Ah, yes, that wonderful time before Sanders gained prominence when republicans didn't attack democrats as socialists. I remember it vividly.
... You and I both know that you're claiming a temporal demarcation that doesn't exist. That's before even getting into the fact that even if it did exist, it's a purely reductive attempt at a gotcha while willfully missing the whole point of my comment.
Democrats are a socialist party, that's the whole point, we're the party of the people. Let's just embrace that instead of hiding behind "politically correct" language that obfuscates the obvious.
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.
Nobody denies here that the "establishment" messed up. The question is whether or not Mamdani is THE future of the Democratic Party. Given the fact that he couldn't even obtain a majority of the Democratic primary vote in one of the most left wing cities in the USA, my answer remains no.
That's the question you're setting up, but for whom is that the question? I don't think that the enthusiasm about his success in the primaries and suggestions that aspects of his appeal and campaigning can be emulated are tantamount to claiming that "Mamdani is THE future of the Democratic Party".
He did obtain a majority. Literally the whole point of adopting ranked choice voting is to insure that the winner has a majority.
And before you come back with something about not getting a majority of first-choice votes, Mamdani+Lander easily clears 50%. There was a clear first-preference majority for Mamdani's faction.
Right, although I was a Lander supporter and only grudgingly ranked Mamdani 4th. But I know I was an exception, and my vote still counted against Cuomo, which was my backup plan if I couldn't get someone I really supported to win the primary.
Given that they endorsed each other, it seems fair to group them together
Lol. Bill DeBlasio is the only "left wing" Democrat who has ever been elected NYC mayor in my lifetime. Maybe you can count Dinkins, who only won by 2 points in 1989.
Dinkins doesn't count, in my opinion. He was the absolute epitome of a dull establishment functionary who did fine until he had to choose whether to represent everyone or favor his community as Mayor.
Fair enough. I only mention Dinkins because he seems to be at least slightly to the left of Koch and Adams, the only other Democrats that have been elected NYC mayor since 1980.
Abe Beame was left wing. John Lindsay - after his party switch - was left wing.
Those dudes were elected in the 60s and 70s. I was born in 1980.
Wasn't Cuomo the 'establishment" choice? I think most democrats wanted Adams gone especially after his Trump gift.
This time yes. in 2021 it was Adams they couldn't stop tripping over themselves to get back to 19 whoopsie daisy crime policies.
True but crime was an issue and it was a different year. He was a horrible mayor and people in 2025 want him gone.
Right. Point being he was a disaster, they screwed up and their answer to that this time was a creepy sex pest who resigned in disgrace. Hopefully both Adams and Cuomo are making fools of themselves in the private sector this time next year if they're not in jail for their various crimes and the politicians (in NYC more likely than elsewhere) who threw Cuomo's victims under the bus face consequences in their own elections.
Crime is always an issue. Most people always think there's more street crime than ever before, and they're usually dead wrong!
I don't think this is true - lots of moderate / "establishment" Dems (including my mom, and me if I still lived in NYC) were in the Garcia camp. Frankly, she's better than anyone on offer this year...
At the very least I would agree it was not as cut and dry as this race. I wish she won back then.
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.
Well argued.
In Canada there are no primary elections, the parties select their own candidates, and candidates will regularly "parachute" into ridings they aren't from. It makes shuffling out the old for the new a lot easier.
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?
He didn’t lose a primary. He would have though if he was anti choice, anti LGBTQ, et al though.
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.
Kansas which is a similar state passed an abortion rights ballot measure. The fetal viability ballot measure failed by just one point in Nebraska while the 3 month ban passed. It was sold not as a restriction but as an alternative.
Some of those polls mentioned earlier.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/12/americans-views-on-abortion-differ-by-state/
https://prri.org/research/abortion-views-across-all-50-states-key-insights-from-prris-2024-american-values-atlas/
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.
To go through the 24 election and think the 75+ with chronic health problems cohort are underrepresented in politics is a take.
They deserve representation from people in impeccable health.
There is no age cutoff, no one here is arguing that. But continuing to anoint people to their seats uncontested should be a thing of the past. Democrats need to fight for our voters and prove it over and over again, then they need to run real general election campaigns even if they know they’ll win by 50 if they did nothing.
That means we always get the top of their game Democrats to lead us everywhere. I’m not expecting every old person to lose to a younger challenger, I’m not even wanting that to happen personally. What I and I think most of us are advocating for, is to challenge our current leaders instead of just punching our ballot for whoever is currently in office. We could have a better option or maybe not. Our voters decide that!
The weak old incumbents not doing their job to the best of their ability will lose. The ones who are doing their job to the best of their ability will stay in office. We aren’t suddenly going to have no one over the age of 60 or 70 in our governments, federal or local. But we are going to (and do very much need to) cull those who aren’t doing what a majority our voters want.
That’s the only way we get the best of us to lead us at all times. If our voters in the future decide to start electing older people when younger representatives are the annointed ones, I would support that 100% even though that wouldn’t be my preference. I still feel in that hypothetical future I case the young reps should be challenged even if it’s not by who I prefer.
No argument with that. That also means culling 30- and 40-year olds who are not doing their jobs well.
Of course!
My mantra is entirely “fight it out in the primary, come together in the general”. I don’t really care what ideology or age of a challenger is. By all means people should run to the right, left or center of the currently elected reps, however they think a majority of Democrats are in their district/s or state/s.
Just because I’m personally progressive, doesn’t mean I’m against Democrats challenging an incumbent to the right. Or against an older Democrat primarying a younger one. If someone feels they can do a better job and earn our voters support, they should run! My goal is that there is actually a challenge, not so much what direction/type of challenge it ends up being.
Competition = strongest Democrats win = best election results.
Yes indeed. And policy and ability, rather than age, should determine our votes.
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.
Absolutely agree. At the same time I don’t think they were making that argument though so I think it’s important not to put words in others mouths as that makes already difficult and uncomfortable arguments or debates, impossible to be had.
These are questions and perspectives that all need to be read in their own words in order to have a constructive and beneficial conversation with one another on here.
I mean, no, it totally isn't absurd, and what it means is that anyone with really threatening health problems should retire from electoral offices that really matter. Particularly after the Covid epidemic, we should be aware that young people also died and were incapacitated by it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_special_elections_to_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives How many deaths on this list from the last 50 years are under 50 vs. over 70? Is it 10 to 1, 20 to 1?
Not trying to be harsh but we lost an election pretending age isn't a factor. I'm fine with people serving into their 70s and 80s if they are capable but i'm not going to pretend people half their age are just as likely to quickly develop health problems and die.
I'm not pretending that, either. But absolutes are not real life. Elliott Carter did distinguished new work after he turned 100, whereas there are people who are put into the memory care unit I work at with tragic early onset dementia in their 60s.
I went back 25 years instead of 50. Going back to Jan 1 2000, there have been 34 representatives that died in office. Two were under the age of 50. Luke Letlow, who died from Covid complications before inauguration at 41, and Mark Takai who died of cancer at 49.
The average age is 69.4, and the median is 69.5. Half of them (17) were over the age of 70. Three fourths (27) were over the age of 60.
I didn't catch anyone that resigned and then died shortly afterwards.
The ages from youngest to oldest: 41, 49, 56, 57, 58, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65, 65, 66, 67, 68, 68, 68, 69, 70, 73, 73, 74, 74, 74, 75, 76, 77, 77, 77, 80, 80, 82, 84, 88, 88
I tried to go back to 1975, but I got bored. The numbers do look substantially younger in the additional data I did get through, though. I'd guess the average 1975-2000 is likely in the 55-60 range. Presumably a consequence of congress members retiring at younger ages in the past.
Replying to myself, I missed the word "equally". Obviously, older cohorts die sooner on average and have more health problems on average. I suppose the 15-25 cohort also gets into more accidents, violent incidents and suicide attempts than people in the next-older cohorts, but everyone would accept the general point on average.
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.
You are not everyone, I never said you specifically did this, I said democrats did and the evidence is clear on that one. That you feel the need to defend yourself from criticism not directed at you, but instead acknowledging that this does affect Democrats even if it doesn’t affect you, doesn’t mean that you are what all Democrats are like. I said us as in reference to Democrats, not you and me as users.
"We too" sounded like it included you and me.
Yeah, I was referencing we too as being on the Democratic side. Sorry for the confusion.
No problem. I can be a bit too literal-minded sometimes.
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?)