Ally to Keir Starmer, and many Starmer loyalists choice to challenge Burnham, Darren Jones has declined to run in the Labour leadership election and has also endorsed Burnham. This looks like he will go unopposed in the leadership election.
The power this gives Mamdani is tough to overstate. Every Dem in the city who has been considering opposing him on this or that now is reconsidering. Especially Councilmembers. But also state reps and senators. Chuck Schumer has new calculus as he considers whether to run again at all. It was a huge huge risk by Mamdani. Had he struck out or gone 1-2, he'd be weakened and opposition emboldened. But, he sweeps and now is going to find a lot of folks lining up to kiss the ring.
She would have to weigh whether she can get the support of the majority of the House caucus, or if she's better being only 1 of 100 from a major state. I cannot tell you which is better for her, only she can. She's also seriously considering POTUS but I'm not entirely sure there's a path there.
Methinks the presidency is premature. The case of Jerry Brown comes to mind. For some reason American voters don’t like someone who has run for the highest office and lost.
PS. I momentarily forgot the no-presidential-primaries-talk rule.
But would Jeffries give her one? Seems like the caucus does all they can to keep her at arms length: not letting her on Energy and Commerce, for example
I've often doubted that. She's from New York City and very left-wing. When's the last time such a left-wing candidate has won a state-wide position in New York?
Exactly. You're treating that like it's not a measure of public sentiment. Look at Hochul's current popularity, such that she was unopposed in the primaries.
bobby kennedy wasn't left wing? a man that called for an end to the vietnam war, advocated for civil rights, and was a huge ally of labor? he makes our current leadership look even worse by comparison
Unless Trump becomes a Reagan-like figure all of a sudden and his popularity hits the high-50s, AOC would easily win a Senate seat in NY even against someone like Mike Lawler.
When's the last time such a left wing candidate won a state wide position anywhere? It's not common that it happens, but the frequency increases the closer we get to the present. Our party is going through a lot of internal changes where left wing candidates are more and more acceptable both to our own primary electorates and to the general electorate.
ETA: Darn I did it again and confused Goldman with Golden!!
Lander's cross-endorsement of Mamdani in the NYC mayor's race certainly paid off.
I'm not in NY, but I don't think Goldman was a good fit for that district. IIRC, last time several progressive candidates split the vote in the 2024 primary, so Lander might have won anyway even with the Mamdani endorsement. I think it may have impacted the outcome in the other 2 districts.
Emerson called the winners in NY-07, NY-10, and NY-12 back in May. The margins didn't end up being exactly right, but they had the eventual leaders ahead.
Fair. The margins in NY-10 and NY-12 were pretty close to the final result. They only had Valdez winning by 2 in NY-07, but that poll had a lot of undecideds who look like they broke for Valdez in the last month.
Omar hadn't said a quarter of the batshit insane things Chevalier has. Let's not pretend otherwise . .she's going to be a problem. National media will have no qualms highlighting her tweets and I don't think she'll be shy about accepting TV interviews either. Dem primary voters need to be smarter.
Yeah my issue with Chevalier is not that she's clearly to my left (although she is way to my left) it's that she doesn't seem capable of differentiating good information from bad information. She's conspiracy-minded and ascribes complicated problems to the actions of imaginary enemies. Knowing people like that, it's hard to break through to them. I think she'll end up isolated in the caucus because she's such a lunatic, but it sucks that she won (I say this as someone who would've voted for Lander and Mamdani in their primaries). Poor reflection on Mamdani too that he he endorsed her imo. Valdez was one thing but ousting the chair of the CHC who endorsed him for someone who shouldn't be in office demonstrates an unseriousness that's hard to overlook.
Feels like there’s an overcorrection going on right now in terms of certain candidate problems getting completely handwaved in a way we haven’t seen in the past. Unless and until it costs us swing seats I don’t think it’s going to get nudged at all, but it’s pretty clear the base assumes anything is fair game in the age of Trump and to say otherwise is pearl clutching. I don’t agree, but I’m not exactly the profile of a NYC dem primary voter either
This worries me in places like the upcoming Wisconsin and Michigan races. At least if it costs us the Wisconsin governorship, it won’t change much for redistricting, plus we’ll have the state Supreme Court. A US Senate seat would be devastating since we already have no margin for error.
I like AES a lot but I do think the left is playing with fire with him and Platner. If we end up with 50 Senate seats instead of 51 because one of them underperformed the environment it's going to engender a ton of backlash.
Platner I don't think the issue is his positions, it's his character.
idk enough about El-Sayed. What happened to McMorrow? Looks like she just crumbled. The other one's a Schumer endorsement & I can see why the base is not into it (pro Israel yadda)
It was alleged she collapsed for the unforgivable sin of criticizing Hassan Piker though in dubious of that assertion rather than that the primary electorate is just getting polarized
I'm not entirely sure. It really depends on WHICH points. Plenty of what they say could win there. Plenty won't. So, we'd have to see. But focusing on corruption, the need for a big shakeup in the system to make it more responsive to people, and balancing out the gap in wealth I don't think would be a loser in MI.
I was neutral/skewed toward Darializa in the primary due to Espaillat's attempted use of racism in the primary (I'm probably going to piss people off by saying that) but I do agree. It is worth noting that the Tea Party did lose some winnable seats due to insane candidates (Mourdock, Akin, the witch from Delaware, etc.)
his record sounded pretty good to me but I'm just tuning in.
I really do not like it when we embrace unstable characters just because they say everything "right" (at the moment), even with no resume and the other person has an actual voting record.
His campaign highlighted the fact that she is Muslim and alleged that she wanted to displace Dominicans in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan with Haitians and Muslims. Or Muslim Haitians. They also insinuated that she was in sufficiently supportive of her Dominican heritage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was people on Espaillat's campaign that were racist, not him? It's still not great, but in the realm of plausible deniability.
As someone who is a member of DSA and supported their candidates, I care much more about a candidate's positions on the issues that I care about and how they plan on making this country better and more affordable than some stupid tweets they sent when they were not in public office. Voters care about being able to afford to live, not the stupid stuff politicians tweet. I thought we would have already learned that lesson with Trump's wins.
Well, some of us care about stupid tweets. I'm currently in Berlin. There are Stolpersteine (stubling stones) all over town reminding me about all of my relatives who were murdered by the Nazis, and it's because of that generational memory that I am very sensitive to any kind of racism or ethnic or religious incitement from politicians and others in the public eye, whether they are awful incumbents like Espaillat or extremely problematic challengers. Chevalier will from now on be judged by her future statements and actions, but I'm definitely concerned.
(I come from a country that Nazi Germany occupied during WW2. I simply cannot overlook Swastikas, Totenkopf tattoos, or neo-Nazi of Nazi-adjacent rhetoric.)
I hope not, but the history of humanity suggests otherwise. People suck, and other people are good, and you can never really be sure who will do what in extremis.
That is the reason why I haven't and won't be giving to Platner even though I would normally be pouring money (to the degree I can afford) into the race. I'm giving more in states I probably normally wouldn't like Texas, Iowa and Ohio to make up for it.
Did Darializa tweet out anything that called for genocide that I could have missed?
Part of the appeal of these unorthodox candidates is how real and authentic they come across. Graham fucked up in the past and owned up to it while centering his campaign on affordability and fighting the corruption of the oligarchy. He's not offering another oatmeal bland strongly worded letter paid for by the DC consulting class message that has gotten us into this mess.
If the left is not able to get over things that those on the right don't even see as an issue, then we don't even deserve to win elections. Had that been the case Trump would have never even won in 2016.
Then I fail to see why a voter who pays half of their salary on rent and pays more in taxes than a trillionaire should care about a bunch of old mean tweets when the establishment of both parties have done nothing but let the situation fester. You think running more Hillary Clintons, Janet Mills and Haley Stevens is the solution? Best of luck.
With all respect, a lengthy treatise could be written about the batshit-crazy utterances, conspiracy theories, and problematic actions (and, yes, some of them genocide-supporting) of Chevalier. For the sake of brevity, I won’t detail any of that here.
Yes and I’m saying it’s both a tactical and strategic error on the part of the DSA to not think that somebody tweeting that people in interracial relationships are “fetishizing colonizers” as if that’s how people actually talk is a problem and they should try to recruit better candidates - like they did in Lander and Valdez just across town
yea as a white man with a non white partner like what the hell? if i, someone that would rather remain in purgatory forever then vote republican is like who the hell is this nut, then what does the median voter think?
I think important to highlight from implicitly in your point to explicitly stated: better candidates do exist. The left is not limited to recruiting flawed candidates for primaries. There are a lot of them that are just solid, quality candidates that fit their district/state. We can recruit more of that group and focus our energy on the primaries where they're present.
The problem is Republicans have structural advantages (the nature of the Senate, redistricting, courts) that can offset some of their candidates' crazy shit. We do not -- no room for error.
There's definitely been a shift on how our base reacts to candidate issues.
I was interacting with some people that do not follow politics in a more normal way, and the confidence with which they handwaved away all of Platner's flaws as fabricated caught me off guard. It helped contextualize for me why none of it seemed to damage him at all.
That’s not what should have been disqualifying. Her antisemitism, calling for nationalizing all housing and abolishing all borders and all police, spreading COVID-19 conspiracies, being against US support for Ukraine, and being against interracial relationships is what should have been.
I think going into more detail would be against the rules (and if the moderators would like me to edit my comment to remove that part I can), but for me her record on that topic crossed the line into antisemitism (and I don’t think most left-wing candidates cross that line, but she did).
Yeah “fuck Kamala Harris” is like #30 in the list of shit she’s said that’s insane. Idk what Mamdani was thinking throwing his weight behind her compared to Lander or Valdez who are unproblematic
the horseshoe is just basically a set of triple parentheses.
"I like this person because they're mad and I'm mad and we're mad about the same things" might be a good place to start, but a lot of people seem to end there.
My suspicion is she was younger and more radical. Sometimes people get less radical with age, I used to be a lot more radical than I am now. As another commenter noted, Omar was the same -- perhaps Darializa will become like Omar.
She also said it only 5 years ago. People can change with age but the idea that people’s comments a few years ago don’t reflect who they are feels like a way to excuse and dismiss evidence about who they are.
I think her problems are still better than Espaillat calling her a "Muslim Haitian" the last week of the campaign. Not to mention his corporate PAC money.
If you're mad over some tweets, I'll just keep saying we should look at who's President and leave it at that. The voters just don't care anymore.
Espaillat had two main problems: He never made amends with Keith Wright and the Black Harlem establishment, and he treated his Dominican base as if they were a guarantee to lock the district. He made all this noise about gentrifiers coming in but the reality is if you're an elected, you can't pit your district against itself. You have to learn what people want, reach out to them, and adjust when needed. He didn't do that. It's Crowley 2.0.
Yeah, Espaillat's intentional use of a particularly ugly brand of racial politics is more disqualifying, IMO. Also, if Chevalier continues to be a problem, it's easier to unseat a progressive than an entrenched backbencher. There's no reason we can't come back in 2028 with a less polarizing progressive if she proves to be a thorn for us.
You may be right. I have to say, though, as a Jew, I'm happy about the pushback against AIPAC but pretty concerned about the increasing hate crimes and invective against Jews, which are certainly not done only by neo-Nazi right-wing types. I know we have to be careful about how we discuss this issue, but I hope all of us on this board, at least, would agree that the United States is no other country and foreign policy is no excuse for racism or bigotry against Jews or anyone else. I sometimes find myself thinking about the possibility that the Democratic Party could develop the kinds of problems with bigotry on the left that beset Labour and hoping that won't be the case.
I 100% agree. I know some claims of antisemitism don't pass the smell test, like how Gottheimer is saying that people attacking AIPAC's use of dark money is antisemitic, but it's pretty alarming how some Democrats use those instances as an excuse to overlook the very real instances of antisemitism within the party.
Without directly renewing the debate about just how much bigotry there was among the left-wingers in the Labour Party, I'll say that opponents of the left tarring all of the left in the Democratic Party for the bigotry and extremism of some of them is not just a possibility, it's a certainty.
“We should also elect problematic people who come off as lunatics because Trump is President so who cares” is quite a take considering the disinformation disadvantage we are in vis a vis the right’s propaganda bubble
I think every politician should be held to basic standards of public behavior irregardless of how high or low their office is. Trump’s psychopathy hasn’t exactly been a positive for the culture more generally so idk how aping it on our end - when other progressive challengers show its not necessary - is meant to be helpful, at all
It’s an open question how much that really matters to voters in a district now that pork barrel projects and legislation are severely diminished from what they were.
I think this is really an underrated thought on why incumbents are having so much of an issue. There's a lot of "what have you done for me lately?" happening.
Is it sad? It basically doesn't matter anymore. Seniority has barely any impact anymore. Being a veteran of congress isn't that helpful anymore either, as there's so little getting done and what does get done is determined by the very top of leadership rather than written by rank and file legislators.
Right, incumbents and their defenders love to make this seniority/experience defense, but if all that seniority and experience has led us to this place, it can't be worth all that much.
Why is no republican asked about Randy Fine every day? If you're swayed in MI or IA by what a random democrat in NYC is saying then you're looking for any excuse not to vote for a democrat. Folks in the Democratic Party get held to an immeasurably higher standard than Republicans do. Dems should employ the republican strategy of "I didn't see the tweet" and move on.
Honestly Chevalier's more "interesting" takes on social media makes it easy for Dems who want to show they aren't your ordinary Dem to swing at and get some brownie points.
Any Democrat who short circuits when asked if they agree with her take on interracial dating or prison abolition was probably not a great candidate to begin with!
It's something though that it didn't and it cannot just be waved away as antisemitism, though I'm sure some is. But, I really think the Democrats cannot underestimate how much people are fed up with the system that's pretty corrupt and praises incrementalism, across the spectrum. And so if someone comes around and says "Nope!" that person is going to get a lot of attention and consideration.
Why? Her "problematic statements" happen to align with a significant portion of the Democratic coalition, hence her winning the primary. She's going to win the general election. I'm not seeing the problem here
In Canada, most of us don't get to pick our party candidates. Partly that is because the main parties give broad powers to their leaders to handpick candidates, which is done quite frequently when you have a "star" that they want to run in a safe seat. That happened with the candidates in the two by-elections we had a couple of months ago in Toronto. But also because most Canadians aren't members of a political party, and we don't have party registration here in the same way Americans in many states have. There might be a surge for a leadership election, but it falls off quickly after that. Even if there is a competitive candidate selection, it might involve a few dozen or few hundred party members at best. So the idea of having thousands, if not millions, of voters involved in selecting candidates can seem like a wonderful exercise of democratic values.
Having said that, I wonder what effects it is having on American democracy. The Tea Party wave, Trump's heavy-handed endorsement record, and the current battle for the soul of the Democratic Party all seem to be leading to further division, both within parties and in society in general. The numbers I quoted in my post last night: 99 million dollars spent on the Paxton v Cornyn primary, compared with 68 million spent by all political parties in last year's Canadian election. The rampant gerrymandering, making a primary winner a virtual lock to win the race. They all lead me to conclude that primaries are good in theory, but in execution can perhaps lead to greater harm.
I thought local party groups were at least somewhat involved in preselection?
Either way, your first paragraph follows the same thought process Progressive Era reformers had and why we got primaries in the first place. I don’t think going back to ward bosses is going to solve polarization - that’s a media problem in the end - but every primary being open rather than closed, and a gerrymandering ban, could certainly help.
But in the end we need a political media ecosystem that isn’t incentivized to pit us against each other and treat politics like a grand sports game with teams we’re all on in the culture war
In the Maryland Senate, while Senate President Bill Ferguson survived his primary challenge, Majority Leader Nancy King was defeated by first-time incumbent Amar Mukunda. News media have not yet called the race, but Mukunda leads by 1100 votes (13%). Somewhere around 2/3 or 3/4 of mail ballots remain to be counted, but King led the first batch of mail ballots by only 100 votes. https://results.elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/primary_results/gen_results_2026_by_county_16.html
King is an ex-Republican and one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Senate caucus. Key issues for Mukunda were King's support of highway expansions and her opposition to Congressional redistricting.
Yes! I am surprised this didn’t get a mention in the blurb since she is the Majority Leader.
I live in this district and voted for Amar. We voted late by mail. At any rate, she was so out of touch and talking out of both sides of her mouth for years.
Long overdue, IMHO. Happy to have a young progressive focused on renewable energy representing me now!
When I see candidates win their primary or special election despite being massively outspent (the special legislative races in TX and FL, as well as the NY primaries last night), that says something about the political wave that's building.
And yet another state Senate Republican leader lost his primary, albeit way more than what Phil Berger did in March. 2026 is going to be a bigger wave year than 2018.
I wonder what the Trump people believed would happen when they rammed his psycho agenda through. Of course, the answer is probably that they didn't consider the consequences because they were too busy kissing Trump's ass. That, or they'll just get a lobbyist job when they lose. Sigh.
There’s a big subset that reads their own press a bit too much and genuinely believe the pseudointellectual nonsense that DJT of all people is genuinely trying to rescue Western civilization from decadence or barbarism or whatever and thus any means justify the ends.
Suffice to say that this is not what a “I’m grumpy about inflation” electorate actually believes it voted for, and we are seeing the impacts of this now in polling. It also doesn’t help that as you say you are not allowed to contradict the Leader’s whims even though he’s wrong 99% of the time and economically illiterate and cannot countenance taking an L and backtracking even when it would arguably help
With all the talk of Darializa and Lander and Valdez, I'm surprised no one is talking about the fact that there was also a progressive sweep in the state legislature. I believe the DSA's slate missed one (Conrad Blackburn) and last I checked, won all the others. (Sad Niou didn't win though myself, but hey, you can't win them all.) Eli Northrup, Eon Huntley, Illapa Sairitupac, David Orkin, these are people who are going to help Mamdani get his agenda through the state legislature, a massive roadblock prior. This is a big fucking deal.
Only one tax went through, which was a tax on second homes worth $5m+ in NYC. He still supports raising taxes on the rich and corporations which Hochul and most of these incumbents who lost did not.
Do we know how these districts voted in 2025? It'd be interesting to see how Mamdani's reach is expanding or not, since I think he won all three House districts from last night comfortably in both the primary and general in 2025.
Not thrilled about Jawando winning; I voted for Friedson. He and Glass both clearly seemed committed to a YIMBY-affordability agenda, while Jawando on the topic was mixed at best--initially seeming supportive until NIMBY activists whined about it.
Still, he'll probably at least be an upgrade from Elrich.
The most surpisring result to me, outside of Chevalier, is longtime Syracuse Dem Assemblyman Bill Magnarelli losing to a DSA-backed challenger. Magnarelli is a huge name in Central New York and the dean of the delegation, he's been in office since I was in middle school. Him losing, let alone to a 34 year old gadfly-ish candidate, would have seemed unfathomable until recently.
He’s not my favorite because he’s part of the down-county cabal that ignores the most diverse and struggling part of the county, and they never do anything about economic development which keeps jacking up residential property taxes unsustainably
Lots of focus on the NYC primary results and rightfully so. But I do think that while those Mamdani-backed wins have an overall, undeniable national implication, the context of other wins is important. Just north of NYC, #NY17 Democratic voters overwhelmingly chose Cait Conley, widely considered to be the more moderate, mainstream Democrat in that race. We also saw more mainstream Democrats advance in Utah (McAdams) and South Carolina (Lacore). This is a big tent Democratic party, and it should be.
Side note: As a Cait Conley supporter, her win - and victory party - was one of the most joyous political experiences of my life. I cannot wait to see her defeat Mike Lawler.
Technically Randy Villegas is a progressive in a swing seat in CA-22 as well, but judging by the numbers Valadao was pulling in the initial primary, I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning in November.
Villegas fits his district well. Bakersfield (at least the half in this district, the other half is another story) is a progressive, working class city home to the likes of Dolores Huerta (who endorsed him), and it's about damn time a Hispanic majority seat designed to elect someone Hispanic gets its first Hispanic representative.
Yeah if nothing else I think Lander and Valdez are pretty honest and accurate representations of their districts’ political leans these days so anytime we’re getting Dems who fit their constituents it’s a positive
Dunno whether it was a mistake. She had her opinion. She doesn't suffer as a result of voters picking someone she didn't endorse to replace her following her retirement.
Yeah, also MD-05 where the Hoyer-backed candidate won and the MD senate president hung on. However, media cos are HQd in NYC so they'll give outsized coverage. Personally, I am not bothered by any of them except Darializa. She needs to reflect on her baggage now that she's no longer running a competitive race where she has to worry about "gotcha" questions.
Completely agree with this statement. I'm not sure there was an overwhelming takeaway from last night's results. Maybe something like "Mamdani has a profound influence on NYC politics. Elsewhere, electability seems to be Dems primary concern".
Also Mamdani picked and choose where he wanted to put a marker in the sand. He didn't go after Clarke or Torres. (Mamdani personally intervened to squash any DSA supported challenge to Hakeem Jeffries.)
So, after being pulled for a week and a half from the schedule, NC Rs have finally put House Bill 958 up for debate. The omnibus elections bill would give the state auditor even more control over our state elections, let him hire 25 more partisan employees, allow more votes to be challenged (a la Griffin v Riggs), et al.
Of course, they're not allowing public debate or comment on this (a la the Congressional maps they rammed through last year), they're just fast-tracking it. I guess they made some concessions to traitor Carla Cunningham and Nasif Majeed in order to get their votes for a veto override...
It passed the House rules committee on a party line vote, the final stop before a full floor vote. Tricia Cotham was the only R who voted no with the Democrats.
I don't like Crenshaw much, but there was a time when he probably could have become a strong contender for higher office. The wacko who will replace him in the next Congress, not so much.
there's maybe a world where Dems beat one or both of Paxton and Cruz and the TX GOP realizes they need to moderate and Crenshaw is one of the obvious ways to do it. I'm not holding my breath for either outcome.
I doubt that the GOP electorate will moderate if Talarico beats Paxton this year. Their base hardly shows any interest in moderating and if anything, the loss of the more moderate GOP voters in the suburbs would result in an even more conservative GOP that is even more dominated by rural and Evangelical voters.
100%. Crenshaw is a well-spoken war hero who in other times would be a shoo-in for higher office in a place like Texas. Not, however, in today's Magasphere.
Well-spoken except when he threatens to kill Tucker Carlson, lol. No matter how punch-able and annoying that guy is, I wouldn't advocate for his death.
With the primary runoff election this Saturday, it seems Julia Letlow has a real race against former Rep. John Fleming, who has been getting traction in the polls.
I just realized that Fleming is 74, which means he's likely going to end up serving 1-2 terms (unless he pulls a Chuck Grassley) if elected to the Senate.
I recall John Fleming had called for the IRS to be abolished although this likely happened when President Obama was in office. Fleming also left the House before Trump was inaugurated as POTUS.
It should be noted though that Fleming did have multiple positions in the Trump Administration during Trump's first term. He was Deputy Chief of Staff.
If he vetoes, it will have to go through the entire process again, though. I doubt absolutely everyone who voted for it now would again, though the majorities were big enough that I think we can keep it at 2/3.
I thought a bill not signed by the president was pocket vetoed if the Congress didn't act further, but I see that pocket vetoes happen only when Congress is out of session.
Hasn't Agran been mayor for like 40 years?
Ally to Keir Starmer, and many Starmer loyalists choice to challenge Burnham, Darren Jones has declined to run in the Labour leadership election and has also endorsed Burnham. This looks like he will go unopposed in the leadership election.
https://news.sky.com/video/darren-jones-andy-burnham-is-going-to-be-next-pm-13557239%7Caccess-date=
The power this gives Mamdani is tough to overstate. Every Dem in the city who has been considering opposing him on this or that now is reconsidering. Especially Councilmembers. But also state reps and senators. Chuck Schumer has new calculus as he considers whether to run again at all. It was a huge huge risk by Mamdani. Had he struck out or gone 1-2, he'd be weakened and opposition emboldened. But, he sweeps and now is going to find a lot of folks lining up to kiss the ring.
It should also encourage AOC to run for Senate in 2028.
Yes, absolutely her thinking and Schumer's are affected
Tbf, I’ve never doubted that she’d win if she ran for the Senate. The question is if she wants the job.
She wants to change the country. The Senate may not be the best place for that.
She's young enough to serve there first, in any case.
Seems like a better place than the house.
a term in the senate would be extremely good for both the country and for her chances to actually win a presidential.
2028 aint it.
AOC may have far more impact in a leadership position in the Democratically-controlled House. Thoughts?
That depends on what her ultimate political goals are. If she's content to pursue legislative influence, you could be right.
She would have to weigh whether she can get the support of the majority of the House caucus, or if she's better being only 1 of 100 from a major state. I cannot tell you which is better for her, only she can. She's also seriously considering POTUS but I'm not entirely sure there's a path there.
Keep in mind that we can't talk about potential Democratic presidential primary candidacies.
I think she’ll seek a promotion regardless, it’s just a question of whether she goes for the Senate or the presidency.
Methinks the presidency is premature. The case of Jerry Brown comes to mind. For some reason American voters don’t like someone who has run for the highest office and lost.
PS. I momentarily forgot the no-presidential-primaries-talk rule.
But would Jeffries give her one? Seems like the caucus does all they can to keep her at arms length: not letting her on Energy and Commerce, for example
I've often doubted that. She's from New York City and very left-wing. When's the last time such a left-wing candidate has won a state-wide position in New York?
When’s the last time one has been nominated?
Exactly. You're treating that like it's not a measure of public sentiment. Look at Hochul's current popularity, such that she was unopposed in the primaries.
bobby kennedy springs to mind
And that's before my memory of politics began. He was assassinated when I was 3.
A convenient alibi you have there.
He wasn’t left-wing, at least not in 1964. Paul O’Dwyer and Ramsey Clark in ‘68 and ‘74 are two that might fit the description.
Cool. And I was 9 in 1974.
Kennedy wasn’t particularly left wing
I know of only two extreme Kennedys, neither of them left wing: RFK Jr and Senator John Kennedy (R-LA, no relation).
bobby kennedy wasn't left wing? a man that called for an end to the vietnam war, advocated for civil rights, and was a huge ally of labor? he makes our current leadership look even worse by comparison
It all depends on the broader environment. Trump's unpopularity makes things possible.
Perhaps, but let's revisit this when the time comes. This isn't a 2026 election you're talking about.
Unless Trump becomes a Reagan-like figure all of a sudden and his popularity hits the high-50s, AOC would easily win a Senate seat in NY even against someone like Mike Lawler.
I didn't start the conversation.
When's the last time such a left wing candidate won a state wide position anywhere? It's not common that it happens, but the frequency increases the closer we get to the present. Our party is going through a lot of internal changes where left wing candidates are more and more acceptable both to our own primary electorates and to the general electorate.
I don't doubt that she would win in NY state.
At this moment, I think she has her eye on something else.
Has she given any indication of that?
ETA: Darn I did it again and confused Goldman with Golden!!
Lander's cross-endorsement of Mamdani in the NYC mayor's race certainly paid off.
I'm not in NY, but I don't think Goldman was a good fit for that district. IIRC, last time several progressive candidates split the vote in the 2024 primary, so Lander might have won anyway even with the Mamdani endorsement. I think it may have impacted the outcome in the other 2 districts.
I thought "Who is Golden?" You mean Goldman.
Jared Golden Dem ME 2
Among others.
Emerson called the winners in NY-07, NY-10, and NY-12 back in May. The margins didn't end up being exactly right, but they had the eventual leaders ahead.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/new-york-city-2026-congressional-polling-ny-07-ny-10-ny-12/
Emerson's track record in dem primaries has been great this cycle. They also got the Texas dem senate primary exactly right.
Primary polling is REALLY tough; you can't be judging much on margins there.
Fair. The margins in NY-10 and NY-12 were pretty close to the final result. They only had Valdez winning by 2 in NY-07, but that poll had a lot of undecideds who look like they broke for Valdez in the last month.
Brad Lander is great candidate! But Darializa Avila Chevalier’s huge collection of problematic statements ought to have thoroughly disqualified her.
Hopefully someone sits down with her (AOC perhaps?) and helps her figure out how to channel her passions in a more constructive and dignified manner.
Hopefully, indeed. Ilhan Omar got better with time and experience, no reason others can’t either I guess
Omar hadn't said a quarter of the batshit insane things Chevalier has. Let's not pretend otherwise . .she's going to be a problem. National media will have no qualms highlighting her tweets and I don't think she'll be shy about accepting TV interviews either. Dem primary voters need to be smarter.
Agreed. Just saying that it is possible
Yeah my issue with Chevalier is not that she's clearly to my left (although she is way to my left) it's that she doesn't seem capable of differentiating good information from bad information. She's conspiracy-minded and ascribes complicated problems to the actions of imaginary enemies. Knowing people like that, it's hard to break through to them. I think she'll end up isolated in the caucus because she's such a lunatic, but it sucks that she won (I say this as someone who would've voted for Lander and Mamdani in their primaries). Poor reflection on Mamdani too that he he endorsed her imo. Valdez was one thing but ousting the chair of the CHC who endorsed him for someone who shouldn't be in office demonstrates an unseriousness that's hard to overlook.
Yeah...that all sounds not good :/
damn.
If she doesn't do the job well, she'll draw a strong primary challenger in the next cycle or two.
She could do great constituent service while saying a lot of damaging shit and potentially win reelection forever.
I suggested this for IL-4 and got slammed for it, so proceed with caution.
Feels like there’s an overcorrection going on right now in terms of certain candidate problems getting completely handwaved in a way we haven’t seen in the past. Unless and until it costs us swing seats I don’t think it’s going to get nudged at all, but it’s pretty clear the base assumes anything is fair game in the age of Trump and to say otherwise is pearl clutching. I don’t agree, but I’m not exactly the profile of a NYC dem primary voter either
This worries me in places like the upcoming Wisconsin and Michigan races. At least if it costs us the Wisconsin governorship, it won’t change much for redistricting, plus we’ll have the state Supreme Court. A US Senate seat would be devastating since we already have no margin for error.
I agree, El-Sayed if he wins the primary will need to move to the center. DSA talking points aren't going to work in Michigan.
I like AES a lot but I do think the left is playing with fire with him and Platner. If we end up with 50 Senate seats instead of 51 because one of them underperformed the environment it's going to engender a ton of backlash.
Platner I don't think the issue is his positions, it's his character.
idk enough about El-Sayed. What happened to McMorrow? Looks like she just crumbled. The other one's a Schumer endorsement & I can see why the base is not into it (pro Israel yadda)
It was alleged she collapsed for the unforgivable sin of criticizing Hassan Piker though in dubious of that assertion rather than that the primary electorate is just getting polarized
Fingers crossed that Abdul El-Sayed loses his primary. I’m not a fan.
How come, genuinely? From what I've seen he's been pretty good. Maybe not as great of a candidate as Mallory McMorrow, but better than Haley Stevens.
For various reasons, I’m not going to detail that here. But, yes, I agree that McMorrow is the better candidate. I do hope she pulls through!
I'm not entirely sure. It really depends on WHICH points. Plenty of what they say could win there. Plenty won't. So, we'd have to see. But focusing on corruption, the need for a big shakeup in the system to make it more responsive to people, and balancing out the gap in wealth I don't think would be a loser in MI.
I was neutral/skewed toward Darializa in the primary due to Espaillat's attempted use of racism in the primary (I'm probably going to piss people off by saying that) but I do agree. It is worth noting that the Tea Party did lose some winnable seats due to insane candidates (Mourdock, Akin, the witch from Delaware, etc.)
So you won't excuse his statements but will her ridiculous statements?
That is a good point. Again, I was ultimately neutral in the end. I didn’t like either of them.
Neutrality in the face of such terrible choices is a very respectable position. I'm glad I didn't have to choose between the two.
Probably the most morally consistent and laudable position!
His statements won't be used by Republicans across the country as talking points to hurt Dems in tougher races; hers will.
But will it be effective if Trump’s approval rating is currently 30% and sinking?
It’s not 30% in Texas or a bunch of other swing seats.
And yes — people might feel as crazy as Trump is, it’s better than the alternative. It worked in 2016 and 2024.
what did Espaillat do/say?
his record sounded pretty good to me but I'm just tuning in.
I really do not like it when we embrace unstable characters just because they say everything "right" (at the moment), even with no resume and the other person has an actual voting record.
In general.
His campaign highlighted the fact that she is Muslim and alleged that she wanted to displace Dominicans in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan with Haitians and Muslims. Or Muslim Haitians. They also insinuated that she was in sufficiently supportive of her Dominican heritage.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was people on Espaillat's campaign that were racist, not him? It's still not great, but in the realm of plausible deniability.
Yes, that is correct.
As someone who is a member of DSA and supported their candidates, I care much more about a candidate's positions on the issues that I care about and how they plan on making this country better and more affordable than some stupid tweets they sent when they were not in public office. Voters care about being able to afford to live, not the stupid stuff politicians tweet. I thought we would have already learned that lesson with Trump's wins.
Well, some of us care about stupid tweets. I'm currently in Berlin. There are Stolpersteine (stubling stones) all over town reminding me about all of my relatives who were murdered by the Nazis, and it's because of that generational memory that I am very sensitive to any kind of racism or ethnic or religious incitement from politicians and others in the public eye, whether they are awful incumbents like Espaillat or extremely problematic challengers. Chevalier will from now on be judged by her future statements and actions, but I'm definitely concerned.
Thank you. My wife is Jewish. Never again!
(I come from a country that Nazi Germany occupied during WW2. I simply cannot overlook Swastikas, Totenkopf tattoos, or neo-Nazi of Nazi-adjacent rhetoric.)
I hope not, but the history of humanity suggests otherwise. People suck, and other people are good, and you can never really be sure who will do what in extremis.
That is the reason why I haven't and won't be giving to Platner even though I would normally be pouring money (to the degree I can afford) into the race. I'm giving more in states I probably normally wouldn't like Texas, Iowa and Ohio to make up for it.
Did Darializa tweet out anything that called for genocide that I could have missed?
Part of the appeal of these unorthodox candidates is how real and authentic they come across. Graham fucked up in the past and owned up to it while centering his campaign on affordability and fighting the corruption of the oligarchy. He's not offering another oatmeal bland strongly worded letter paid for by the DC consulting class message that has gotten us into this mess.
If the left is not able to get over things that those on the right don't even see as an issue, then we don't even deserve to win elections. Had that been the case Trump would have never even won in 2016.
Do you really think that only calling for genocide is a threat? If that's what you think, all I can say is wow.
Then I fail to see why a voter who pays half of their salary on rent and pays more in taxes than a trillionaire should care about a bunch of old mean tweets when the establishment of both parties have done nothing but let the situation fester. You think running more Hillary Clintons, Janet Mills and Haley Stevens is the solution? Best of luck.
With all respect, a lengthy treatise could be written about the batshit-crazy utterances, conspiracy theories, and problematic actions (and, yes, some of them genocide-supporting) of Chevalier. For the sake of brevity, I won’t detail any of that here.
So then I'll take that as a "no"
"Came across real and authentic" is how people talked about Trump, too.
I really think people need to interrogate that falling-in-love feeling more often, tbh.
Almost the exact same thing happened 8 years ago. We can probably expect the same things that happened 4 and 2 years ago to follow.
The status quo is a no-go in many parts.
People are fed up. Dems. Indies. Republicans. Progressives. Moderates. Conservatives.
Big corporate PAC money or AIPAC $$ can be a bigger sin in some parts than Nazi-adjacent tats from 20 years ago or eff Harris tweets.
Yes and I’m saying it’s both a tactical and strategic error on the part of the DSA to not think that somebody tweeting that people in interracial relationships are “fetishizing colonizers” as if that’s how people actually talk is a problem and they should try to recruit better candidates - like they did in Lander and Valdez just across town
Technically Lander wasn't a DSA candidate, but a lot of the people who backed the DSA candidates backed him.
Fair point, but you get what I meant
yea as a white man with a non white partner like what the hell? if i, someone that would rather remain in purgatory forever then vote republican is like who the hell is this nut, then what does the median voter think?
I don’t think the median voter knows what the word "median" means.
made me snort out my water, objectively the funniest and most true comment i've read all day
I think important to highlight from implicitly in your point to explicitly stated: better candidates do exist. The left is not limited to recruiting flawed candidates for primaries. There are a lot of them that are just solid, quality candidates that fit their district/state. We can recruit more of that group and focus our energy on the primaries where they're present.
The problem is Republicans have structural advantages (the nature of the Senate, redistricting, courts) that can offset some of their candidates' crazy shit. We do not -- no room for error.
There's definitely been a shift on how our base reacts to candidate issues.
I was interacting with some people that do not follow politics in a more normal way, and the confidence with which they handwaved away all of Platner's flaws as fabricated caught me off guard. It helped contextualize for me why none of it seemed to damage him at all.
I'm sorry but thinking that Darializa saying "fuck Kamala Harris" should've been disqualifying is such a relic of pre-Trump politics
If only that’s all there was...
It's not the cursing that's at issue there.
That’s not what should have been disqualifying. Her antisemitism, calling for nationalizing all housing and abolishing all borders and all police, spreading COVID-19 conspiracies, being against US support for Ukraine, and being against interracial relationships is what should have been.
Question: by antisemitism, what comments specifically? Is this specifically about a topic we can't discuss, or is it legit antisemitism?
I think going into more detail would be against the rules (and if the moderators would like me to edit my comment to remove that part I can), but for me her record on that topic crossed the line into antisemitism (and I don’t think most left-wing candidates cross that line, but she did).
Got it. I'll avoid discussing further as per the rules.
Yeah “fuck Kamala Harris” is like #30 in the list of shit she’s said that’s insane. Idk what Mamdani was thinking throwing his weight behind her compared to Lander or Valdez who are unproblematic
Exactly. I wouldn't have voted for either Lander or Valdez, but I"m not afraid of having them in our caucus. Chevalier is different...
Damn this new generation is making AOC seem "moderate" in comparison. Or maybe she's just more likable and attractive in comparison.
She’s also been around long enough now to grasp how the game works if you want to actually achieve things rather than just play insurgent
I don't get the sense that she's changed much, she's never been a hot take kinda person
That’s true, that wasn’t her style in the beginning either. But I do still think she’s become savvier with time
AOC is perfectly mainstream and stable, always has been.
oh christ it's a tankie.
which, DSA is not exactly free of.
greeeeaat.
as for the antisemitism:
the horseshoe is just basically a set of triple parentheses.
"I like this person because they're mad and I'm mad and we're mad about the same things" might be a good place to start, but a lot of people seem to end there.
Why did she say this?
My suspicion is she was younger and more radical. Sometimes people get less radical with age, I used to be a lot more radical than I am now. As another commenter noted, Omar was the same -- perhaps Darializa will become like Omar.
She also said it only 5 years ago. People can change with age but the idea that people’s comments a few years ago don’t reflect who they are feels like a way to excuse and dismiss evidence about who they are.
I guess we’ll see then.
*coughPlatnercough*
seriously
Ok but why did she say that?
My suspicion is the position of the Biden admin on the forbidden topic.
I think her problems are still better than Espaillat calling her a "Muslim Haitian" the last week of the campaign. Not to mention his corporate PAC money.
If you're mad over some tweets, I'll just keep saying we should look at who's President and leave it at that. The voters just don't care anymore.
Both are very bad.
He didn’t call her that. But his campaign did play the nationality/religion card.
They said she was a muslim Hatian? Is either of those true?
Chevalier is a Muslim, as noted in the digest. But she is Afro-Dominican.
Espaillat had two main problems: He never made amends with Keith Wright and the Black Harlem establishment, and he treated his Dominican base as if they were a guarantee to lock the district. He made all this noise about gentrifiers coming in but the reality is if you're an elected, you can't pit your district against itself. You have to learn what people want, reach out to them, and adjust when needed. He didn't do that. It's Crowley 2.0.
Solid summary
Yeah, Espaillat's intentional use of a particularly ugly brand of racial politics is more disqualifying, IMO. Also, if Chevalier continues to be a problem, it's easier to unseat a progressive than an entrenched backbencher. There's no reason we can't come back in 2028 with a less polarizing progressive if she proves to be a thorn for us.
You may be right. I have to say, though, as a Jew, I'm happy about the pushback against AIPAC but pretty concerned about the increasing hate crimes and invective against Jews, which are certainly not done only by neo-Nazi right-wing types. I know we have to be careful about how we discuss this issue, but I hope all of us on this board, at least, would agree that the United States is no other country and foreign policy is no excuse for racism or bigotry against Jews or anyone else. I sometimes find myself thinking about the possibility that the Democratic Party could develop the kinds of problems with bigotry on the left that beset Labour and hoping that won't be the case.
I 100% agree. I know some claims of antisemitism don't pass the smell test, like how Gottheimer is saying that people attacking AIPAC's use of dark money is antisemitic, but it's pretty alarming how some Democrats use those instances as an excuse to overlook the very real instances of antisemitism within the party.
Exactly.
Such as?
Start with Chevalier's wonderful racist remark about the marriage of the 2024 Democratic presidential candidate whom she refused to support.
I’m worried that the same tactics used to undermine Corbyn’s leadership will be used. See the Forde Report:
Internal factions intentionally weaponized, exaggerated, or fabricated claims of antisemitism to undermine Jeremy Corbyn's leadership.
And
https://www.declassifieduk.org/inside-labour-togethers-secret-battle-against-jeremy-corbyn/
Without directly renewing the debate about just how much bigotry there was among the left-wingers in the Labour Party, I'll say that opponents of the left tarring all of the left in the Democratic Party for the bigotry and extremism of some of them is not just a possibility, it's a certainty.
Corbyn had a bunch of problems imo, not just that one.
“We should also elect problematic people who come off as lunatics because Trump is President so who cares” is quite a take considering the disinformation disadvantage we are in vis a vis the right’s propaganda bubble
I think it's wrong to hold candidates for downballot offices to a higher standard when voters clearly don't care about these controversies. Period.
I think every politician should be held to basic standards of public behavior irregardless of how high or low their office is. Trump’s psychopathy hasn’t exactly been a positive for the culture more generally so idk how aping it on our end - when other progressive challengers show its not necessary - is meant to be helpful, at all
Yes, because the right-wing propaganda bubble has failed so miserably against “mainstream” Democrats.
Fair, though no need to give them extra ammunition when there’s plenty of DSA types who don’t post unhinged shit on Twitter and then not disavow it
Chevalier’s problematic-ness is unique to her not to her lane of the party, is what I’m saying
The district also threw out having a rep with seniority and committee headship come the next Congress.
It’s an open question how much that really matters to voters in a district now that pork barrel projects and legislation are severely diminished from what they were.
I think this is really an underrated thought on why incumbents are having so much of an issue. There's a lot of "what have you done for me lately?" happening.
It also doesn't help that congress mostly does show votes and continuing resolutions. Can't exactly bring anything home when nothing gets done.
Which is what it did when Espaillat kind of drove Charlie Rangel from the race.
Nobody cares about that anymore, sadly
Is it sad? It basically doesn't matter anymore. Seniority has barely any impact anymore. Being a veteran of congress isn't that helpful anymore either, as there's so little getting done and what does get done is determined by the very top of leadership rather than written by rank and file legislators.
Right, incumbents and their defenders love to make this seniority/experience defense, but if all that seniority and experience has led us to this place, it can't be worth all that much.
People like Tom Nichols are already saying that Avila Chevalier will be a millstone around every Democrat's neck in November.
I find that a tad far-fetched.
That’s hyperbole, hopefully.
On the other hand, I believe Trump is gonna be a millstone around the neck of a helluva lot of Republican candidates, up and down the ballot.
Repubs are delusional if they think a single dem candidate in NYC will matter more than the abysmal policies of the president in November.
It may not be that extreme, but there are lots of races where our margin for error is low and a small swing could make a big difference.
People said the same thing about Bernie in 2006
Oh, him. Meh.
Why is no republican asked about Randy Fine every day? If you're swayed in MI or IA by what a random democrat in NYC is saying then you're looking for any excuse not to vote for a democrat. Folks in the Democratic Party get held to an immeasurably higher standard than Republicans do. Dems should employ the republican strategy of "I didn't see the tweet" and move on.
Honestly Chevalier's more "interesting" takes on social media makes it easy for Dems who want to show they aren't your ordinary Dem to swing at and get some brownie points.
Any Democrat who short circuits when asked if they agree with her take on interracial dating or prison abolition was probably not a great candidate to begin with!
It's something though that it didn't and it cannot just be waved away as antisemitism, though I'm sure some is. But, I really think the Democrats cannot underestimate how much people are fed up with the system that's pretty corrupt and praises incrementalism, across the spectrum. And so if someone comes around and says "Nope!" that person is going to get a lot of attention and consideration.
I didn't see what was supposed to be so bad about Espaillat
Why? Her "problematic statements" happen to align with a significant portion of the Democratic coalition, hence her winning the primary. She's going to win the general election. I'm not seeing the problem here
In Canada, most of us don't get to pick our party candidates. Partly that is because the main parties give broad powers to their leaders to handpick candidates, which is done quite frequently when you have a "star" that they want to run in a safe seat. That happened with the candidates in the two by-elections we had a couple of months ago in Toronto. But also because most Canadians aren't members of a political party, and we don't have party registration here in the same way Americans in many states have. There might be a surge for a leadership election, but it falls off quickly after that. Even if there is a competitive candidate selection, it might involve a few dozen or few hundred party members at best. So the idea of having thousands, if not millions, of voters involved in selecting candidates can seem like a wonderful exercise of democratic values.
Having said that, I wonder what effects it is having on American democracy. The Tea Party wave, Trump's heavy-handed endorsement record, and the current battle for the soul of the Democratic Party all seem to be leading to further division, both within parties and in society in general. The numbers I quoted in my post last night: 99 million dollars spent on the Paxton v Cornyn primary, compared with 68 million spent by all political parties in last year's Canadian election. The rampant gerrymandering, making a primary winner a virtual lock to win the race. They all lead me to conclude that primaries are good in theory, but in execution can perhaps lead to greater harm.
I thought local party groups were at least somewhat involved in preselection?
Either way, your first paragraph follows the same thought process Progressive Era reformers had and why we got primaries in the first place. I don’t think going back to ward bosses is going to solve polarization - that’s a media problem in the end - but every primary being open rather than closed, and a gerrymandering ban, could certainly help.
But in the end we need a political media ecosystem that isn’t incentivized to pit us against each other and treat politics like a grand sports game with teams we’re all on in the culture war
The local riding association does normally make the selection, but can be over road by the leader (who most sign the formation paper)
I would contrast this with the UK, in which Labour and the Tories selected the two most unpopular prime ministers in recorded history.
Madison Cawthorn moved to Florida?
He did, unfortunately. Knowing how crazy FL is and how Rs love GOP transplants, he might get elected to the House AGAIN.
Yes, it’s like the end of a sewer system down here. We also got Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Ben Shapiro.
I thought Carlson lived in Maine and Shapiro lived in Tennessee?
I thought Tucker Carlson lived in Maine?
He has a “retreat” in Maine. His residence is in Boca Grande on the Florida Gulf coast.
Thank you, I stand corrected.
Hoo doggies. Y’all won some kind of lottery.
In the Maryland Senate, while Senate President Bill Ferguson survived his primary challenge, Majority Leader Nancy King was defeated by first-time incumbent Amar Mukunda. News media have not yet called the race, but Mukunda leads by 1100 votes (13%). Somewhere around 2/3 or 3/4 of mail ballots remain to be counted, but King led the first batch of mail ballots by only 100 votes. https://results.elections.maryland.gov/elections/2026/primary_results/gen_results_2026_by_county_16.html
King is an ex-Republican and one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Senate caucus. Key issues for Mukunda were King's support of highway expansions and her opposition to Congressional redistricting.
Yes! I am surprised this didn’t get a mention in the blurb since she is the Majority Leader.
I live in this district and voted for Amar. We voted late by mail. At any rate, she was so out of touch and talking out of both sides of her mouth for years.
Long overdue, IMHO. Happy to have a young progressive focused on renewable energy representing me now!
When I see candidates win their primary or special election despite being massively outspent (the special legislative races in TX and FL, as well as the NY primaries last night), that says something about the political wave that's building.
And yet another state Senate Republican leader lost his primary, albeit way more than what Phil Berger did in March. 2026 is going to be a bigger wave year than 2018.
ARG poll has trump approval at 30%... https://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/
ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!
(But in a good way!)
C'mon, hit the 20s, c'mon......
The day that 2-handle comes…
By November he will be in the 20s…hot take
Forget the 20’s!
I want Trump’s approval rating to hit the 10’s.
I wonder what the Trump people believed would happen when they rammed his psycho agenda through. Of course, the answer is probably that they didn't consider the consequences because they were too busy kissing Trump's ass. That, or they'll just get a lobbyist job when they lose. Sigh.
There’s a big subset that reads their own press a bit too much and genuinely believe the pseudointellectual nonsense that DJT of all people is genuinely trying to rescue Western civilization from decadence or barbarism or whatever and thus any means justify the ends.
Suffice to say that this is not what a “I’m grumpy about inflation” electorate actually believes it voted for, and we are seeing the impacts of this now in polling. It also doesn’t help that as you say you are not allowed to contradict the Leader’s whims even though he’s wrong 99% of the time and economically illiterate and cannot countenance taking an L and backtracking even when it would arguably help
How many of them cared what happens after? They're in it for the grift. Losing power isn't an issue to those types.
Cmon his approval is low but ARG is crap.
With all the talk of Darializa and Lander and Valdez, I'm surprised no one is talking about the fact that there was also a progressive sweep in the state legislature. I believe the DSA's slate missed one (Conrad Blackburn) and last I checked, won all the others. (Sad Niou didn't win though myself, but hey, you can't win them all.) Eli Northrup, Eon Huntley, Illapa Sairitupac, David Orkin, these are people who are going to help Mamdani get his agenda through the state legislature, a massive roadblock prior. This is a big fucking deal.
https://nysfocus.com/2026/06/24/ny-primary-election-results-dsa-state-legislature-2026
Meanwhile, outside of NY, it looks like Will Jawando (a progressive) might win the Montgomery County Executive race in MD. He had the WFP endorsement.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/23/jawando-holds-lead-in-democratic-primary-for-moco-executive-unofficial-results-show/
Curious to see what any MD posters think about this.
I'm curious, what is his agenda in the state legislature?
Mainly it was getting his proposal to tax the rich to pay for his NYC programs through. Which went through anyway, but will now have less opposition.
Did these legislators who lost oppose it?
Only one tax went through, which was a tax on second homes worth $5m+ in NYC. He still supports raising taxes on the rich and corporations which Hochul and most of these incumbents who lost did not.
Do we know how these districts voted in 2025? It'd be interesting to see how Mamdani's reach is expanding or not, since I think he won all three House districts from last night comfortably in both the primary and general in 2025.
Not thrilled about Jawando winning; I voted for Friedson. He and Glass both clearly seemed committed to a YIMBY-affordability agenda, while Jawando on the topic was mixed at best--initially seeming supportive until NIMBY activists whined about it.
Still, he'll probably at least be an upgrade from Elrich.
Elrich seemed like an ur-NIMBY so anything is an improvement there
Same!
The most surpisring result to me, outside of Chevalier, is longtime Syracuse Dem Assemblyman Bill Magnarelli losing to a DSA-backed challenger. Magnarelli is a huge name in Central New York and the dean of the delegation, he's been in office since I was in middle school. Him losing, let alone to a 34 year old gadfly-ish candidate, would have seemed unfathomable until recently.
He’s not my favorite because he’s part of the down-county cabal that ignores the most diverse and struggling part of the county, and they never do anything about economic development which keeps jacking up residential property taxes unsustainably
Lots of focus on the NYC primary results and rightfully so. But I do think that while those Mamdani-backed wins have an overall, undeniable national implication, the context of other wins is important. Just north of NYC, #NY17 Democratic voters overwhelmingly chose Cait Conley, widely considered to be the more moderate, mainstream Democrat in that race. We also saw more mainstream Democrats advance in Utah (McAdams) and South Carolina (Lacore). This is a big tent Democratic party, and it should be.
Side note: As a Cait Conley supporter, her win - and victory party - was one of the most joyous political experiences of my life. I cannot wait to see her defeat Mike Lawler.
Perfect post. No notes.
Technically Randy Villegas is a progressive in a swing seat in CA-22 as well, but judging by the numbers Valadao was pulling in the initial primary, I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning in November.
Villegas fits his district well. Bakersfield (at least the half in this district, the other half is another story) is a progressive, working class city home to the likes of Dolores Huerta (who endorsed him), and it's about damn time a Hispanic majority seat designed to elect someone Hispanic gets its first Hispanic representative.
Yeah if nothing else I think Lander and Valdez are pretty honest and accurate representations of their districts’ political leans these days so anytime we’re getting Dems who fit their constituents it’s a positive
I think Velazquez was good too, but she made a mistake in endorsing Reynoso over Valdez.
Certainly! Don’t think she was ever particularly out of step with her district
Dunno whether it was a mistake. She had her opinion. She doesn't suffer as a result of voters picking someone she didn't endorse to replace her following her retirement.
Yeah, also MD-05 where the Hoyer-backed candidate won and the MD senate president hung on. However, media cos are HQd in NYC so they'll give outsized coverage. Personally, I am not bothered by any of them except Darializa. She needs to reflect on her baggage now that she's no longer running a competitive race where she has to worry about "gotcha" questions.
There was a really good CNN article about what you’re saying that I saw recently, talking about wins left and center. Worth a read.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/21/politics/democratic-primary-election-new-york-mamdani-platner-analysis
I'm thrilled both that Conley won and that she did so decisively.
Completely agree with this statement. I'm not sure there was an overwhelming takeaway from last night's results. Maybe something like "Mamdani has a profound influence on NYC politics. Elsewhere, electability seems to be Dems primary concern".
Also Mamdani picked and choose where he wanted to put a marker in the sand. He didn't go after Clarke or Torres. (Mamdani personally intervened to squash any DSA supported challenge to Hakeem Jeffries.)
That's a good point
So, after being pulled for a week and a half from the schedule, NC Rs have finally put House Bill 958 up for debate. The omnibus elections bill would give the state auditor even more control over our state elections, let him hire 25 more partisan employees, allow more votes to be challenged (a la Griffin v Riggs), et al.
Of course, they're not allowing public debate or comment on this (a la the Congressional maps they rammed through last year), they're just fast-tracking it. I guess they made some concessions to traitor Carla Cunningham and Nasif Majeed in order to get their votes for a veto override...
It passed the House rules committee on a party line vote, the final stop before a full floor vote. Tricia Cotham was the only R who voted no with the Democrats.
https://www.wral.com/news/nccapitol/election-law-changes-house-rules-committee-june-2026/
6 sitting house incumbents have lost their primaries in re-election campaigns so far.
2 were NY Democrats who lost to challengers from the left (Dan Goldman and Adriano Espalliat)
2 were TX Democrats who had to run in new districts due to gerrymandering (Al Green and Julie Johnson)
And 2 were Republicans who were primaries for rebuking Trump (Dan Crenshaw and Thomas Massie)
I don’t have any critical analysis of this info, just thought that it was interesting
I don't think Crenshaw even rebuked Trump. He's just not conservatorship-worthy insane.
Crenshaw is quite partisan as a Republican but he's not exactly MAGA either.
I don't like Crenshaw much, but there was a time when he probably could have become a strong contender for higher office. The wacko who will replace him in the next Congress, not so much.
Yeah, Toth is already in his late 60s. It's probably too late for him.
In normal times, he would have been a natural successor to Cornyn and would have been tough to dislodge.
there's maybe a world where Dems beat one or both of Paxton and Cruz and the TX GOP realizes they need to moderate and Crenshaw is one of the obvious ways to do it. I'm not holding my breath for either outcome.
I doubt that the GOP electorate will moderate if Talarico beats Paxton this year. Their base hardly shows any interest in moderating and if anything, the loss of the more moderate GOP voters in the suburbs would result in an even more conservative GOP that is even more dominated by rural and Evangelical voters.
100%. Crenshaw is a well-spoken war hero who in other times would be a shoo-in for higher office in a place like Texas. Not, however, in today's Magasphere.
Well-spoken except when he threatens to kill Tucker Carlson, lol. No matter how punch-able and annoying that guy is, I wouldn't advocate for his death.
True although Carlson can drive anyone nuts with his privileged, yuppie personality.
I’m sure Crenshaw would make a solid diplomat even with his conservative views.
I think he had a finance scandal too
LA-SEN:
With the primary runoff election this Saturday, it seems Julia Letlow has a real race against former Rep. John Fleming, who has been getting traction in the polls.
I just realized that Fleming is 74, which means he's likely going to end up serving 1-2 terms (unless he pulls a Chuck Grassley) if elected to the Senate.
https://www.fox8live.com/2026/06/24/senate-runoff-polls-show-tighter-gap-between-fleming-letlow/
I recall John Fleming had called for the IRS to be abolished although this likely happened when President Obama was in office. Fleming also left the House before Trump was inaugurated as POTUS.
It should be noted though that Fleming did have multiple positions in the Trump Administration during Trump's first term. He was Deputy Chief of Staff.
State treasurer is also a powerful position in LA. John N. Kennedy had it for 16 years before joining the Senate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-cancels-plan-sign-major-housing-bill-fights-congress-act-rcna351558
Trump won't sign the housing bill passed by Congress that was near unanimous, saying it doesn't matter and that the SAVE Act is of higher importance.
Not great for Republicans considering the midterms. This is a terrible play by TACO.
Trump REALLY wants his party to lose big time this year.
Sure hope so!
I don’t like the damage Trump is doing to the U.S. and its relations overseas.
However, I sure like the sound of more Republicans losing re-election.
I think the margins were big enough that it can pass without his signature
If he vetoes, it will have to go through the entire process again, though. I doubt absolutely everyone who voted for it now would again, though the majorities were big enough that I think we can keep it at 2/3.
He doesn't have the balls to veto it.
And if he doesn’t do anything in ten days, it becomes law.
Only once the bill is sent to the WH, which hasn’t happened yet
I thought a bill not signed by the president was pocket vetoed if the Congress didn't act further, but I see that pocket vetoes happen only when Congress is out of session.
That's thanks to the landmark 1998 SCOTUS case Clinton v. New York, which limited the power of the pocket veto. High school AP Gov coming in clutch.
I see. I took a course in constitutional law in the 80s, so over 10 years before that decision.
Terrible play by TACO but more possibilities of helping Democrats get elected.
Oh man, being a Republican in Congress these days is like trying to get gas for your car out in the desert.