As a middle-aged female Dem, I am thoroughly offended by the [male] establishment support of Cuomo. The fact that he is even able to run again with any kind of support speaks volumes. Jim Clyburn and Bill Clinton? How dare they. So unbelievably tone deaf. I’m getting tired of the powers that be stepping on us women or taking us for granted. This is the last straw for me. I will still vote for Democrats - we HAVE to beat Trump and MAGA - but I am changing my party affiliation to Independent. Democrats: ‘Afraid of a Label’ - says it all right now, doesn’t it?
Independents can’t vote in the Democratic primary. In NYC, the Democratic Primary usually determines our next mayor. Bill and Jim supporting a sex offender is not a good look (Jeffery Epstein)
Thank you, but NPP voters can vote in Primaries in California, which is where I’m from, if they request a partisan ballot. At least, that’s my understanding - I’ll find out for sure before I switch. I’m just getting so tired of national party figures and wealthy donors in both parties putting their weighted fingers on the scale, ESPECIALLY in support of bullies and abusers - and Cuomo is both. And they’ve all come out of the woodwork since MAGA has made the abuse of women and non-white groups ‘great again.’ There’s no excuse for this, and it shouldn’t be tolerated in the Democratic party. I hope New Yorkers vote accordingly.
Thank you for expressing this Dan. It’s embarrassing frankly to watch the Dem Party actively work to elect Cuomo to anything! He is disgusting and a terrible leader. Regardless of what you think of his policies, Mamdani is doing what politicos have been begging dem candidates to do: communicate well and with everyone (he is knocking on doors and doing interviews and podcasts) and be creative in policy ideas, be willing to try things that could help people/solve problems. The Bulwark peeps seem to think if he is elected and is a failure (like they say Brandon Johnson is in Chicago), the story will get nationalized and make it harder for US voters to consider dem candidates as competent. I find this argument pretty weak as having a current mayor under investigation and in Trump’s back pocket is not exactly helpful either.
Sarah, from the Bulwark, hypothetically ranked Ted Cruz over Zohran Mamdani. Even as an uneducated joke that’s awful. Cruz is known to be a creepy asshat at best, while Zohran is kind, smart, and thoughtful. A sweet guy. So even if she didn’t know anything about his policies it reeks of Islamophobia. That says all I need to know about The Bulwark.
also i really do not consider the Bulwark Islamophobic. I think DSA is not in their comfort zone. Tim did have Mamdani on the FYPod for an interview which was very interesting.
I’m not sure if the Bulwark is Islamophobic , but I think that’s what contributed to her kneejerk response to Tim’s prodding. I saw the Mamdani interview with Tim and the FYPod. Tim was respectful and asked good conservative questions and the FYPod guy was hysterical.
Brandon Johnson is a disaster in Chicago. Doesn’t mean Mamdani will be. Recycling Cuomo does seem to be thumbing the nose at young voters and a potential rehab of the Dem party.
Crime down to 60 year low in Chi. He’s doing fine. City looks amazing vibrant. People everywhere. Good restaurants summer fireworks on the lake. It’s great
To a large degree, the Democratic Party should blame Cuomo and Bill Clinton for Mamdani’s popularity. And they should do some soul searching to evaluate the enthusiasm Mamdani’s candidacy has generated.
I live in NJ but I live close enough to NYC to care about what goes on there. For one of the greatest cities in the world, the past few mayors have been abysmal. They have been men who only cared about their self interests and not the majority of New Yorkers who make the city run. Cuomo would be a disastrous choice and only perpetuate this trend. Establishment Dems need to sit down and get out of the way and let a new generation take over. Let the true backbone of New York City - the working and middle class - have the ability to live and thrive in their city.
And I would ask these Establishment Dems, if having a rapist in the White House is appalling to you, why is what Cuomo did ok?
I live in Brooklyn, so I've been tuned into this election for almost a year and find it enormously frustrating. Cuomo seems to be benefitting from the same amnesia that voters got about Trump. He was credibly accused of sexual harassment, used taxpayer dollars to settle those lawsuits, and has several covid-related scandals attached to him, on top of being a governor who ushered in some of the policy that is responsible for what ails the city now. Also, he hasn't lived in the city since the '90s and used AI to write some of his policy positions. He wants power, he doesn't have new ideas. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the NY Dem party establishment has rallied around him. (The depth of my disappointment in Kirsten Gillibrand in particular is hard to measure. Real deep.) (I've loathed Cuomo so long I voted for Cynthia Nixon when she primaried him. I think he's a power-hungry bully exploiting his father's good name in the state.)
But it is frustrating that the party machine fell over themselves to endorse this disgrace when there are a lot of great candidates running. (I'd be happy with any of the progressives running, to be honest. Zellnor Myrie is my guy, but he didn't really break through, alas.) Why is the state party boosting these scandal-plagued "centrist" candidates when progressives with big ideas are pushed out? Why are the Third Way folks so afraid of big ideas? In my opinion, the Dem brand is in the toilet because a decade of small change and incrementalism that didn't really solve people's problems is what people are mad about. It's not like Trump was offering some middle-of-the-road agenda. As misguided and impossible as his agenda was, Trump had big ideas, and I think that's what some people responded to. And I, as a middle aged lady who has been a registered Dem in NYC for more than 20 years, am pretty fed up with the state party sidelining good candidates in favor of men like Cuomo, or continuing to prop up Schumer even though he's proven he's not up to the task of opposing Trump. THAT is why base voters are mad at the Dems. It's not fear of progressive policy. (Sorry for ranting. I have a lot of feelings.)
Party organizations, state or national, don’t sideline candidates, or promote them (in the rare instances when they do, it’s a scandal). That hasn’t been their function in 70 years.
There are lots of uninspiring candidates, candidates who can’t fundraise, and those with ho-hum ideas. There are those who overcome past scandals—deserved or not—and whose name recognition is very high.
It’s not the “Third Way folks” who are looking askance at Mamdani. It is those who hesitate on handing the city to someone with no executive experience.
I will grant you that the machine doesn't exist the way it used to, but most of the party establishment in NY ran to endorse Cuomo. A man who, you know, had to resign in disgrace after being credibly accused of sexual harassment. The establishment could have lined up behind any of the other candidates—if not Mamdani, then Lander, Myrie, or Adrienne Adams—but no, they're backing Cuomo, and the message they're sending is basically "sit down kids, we want more of the same, no new ideas here."
And it is, in fact, Third Way. Politico posted a memo they wrote, the tone of which is, frankly, "we're terrified of change or rocking the boat."
Yes, but Third Way may back one candidate over another, but they are hardly responsible for each candidate’s standing in the polls.
That’s a consequence of the voter’s decisions—whether they want to gamble on a novice with perhaps some good ideas or a known quantity with demonstrated executive ability and perhaps a grubby personal history.
Today’s primary may surprise us all, but it appears voters favor experience and are overlooking the personal faults.
Either way, we can hardly lay the blame at the feet of the party or endorsers.
hey, I'm not a young voter but the DNC is pushing me into political exile. I've voted Democratic from my first election in 1976, but the party's total inability to grasp the reality of our time, its unique perils for the republic and our rights, and its seeming obsession with centrism to the exclusion of ideas that have become popular even with Republicans—and the Democrats' seeming blindness to the need to retire most of the elders and endorse the future by supporting younger candidates—have alienated voters of all ages.
so we had one of our two parties die by suicide in fealty to Trump, and now the unshakeable wrongness of the Democratic Party is strangling it, which leaves us with no functioning party to do what it can to steer us in this era of chaos and danger.
the last thing I expected to confront in this plague time is that the Democratic Party would fall apart so sadly, a victim of its own fears and consultants.
I think you are confusing some lackluster, poor, or inexperienced individual candidates with the Dem Party organization. The party raises money, makes voter lists, and schedules calendar events. It doesn’t determine who’s a candidate, decide which issues to run on, or determine messages. I think your complaints properly rest with shitty individual candidates.
Pay more attention to what's happening in the states and at the local level. That's where Democratic strength and vision is, not with the DNC. Follow the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State (DASS) and the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA). Pay attention to what the Democratic governors are doing: holding the line against far right. (DGA = Democratic Governors Association.)
I've voted Democratic since 1972. Since my state (MA) has an open primary, I regularly voted in Democratic primaries although I was unenrolled in any party. After the 2016 election (during which I campaigned for Hillary Clinton and especially for some excellent young Democrats running for local and legislative offices), I registered as a Dem and became an officer in my local Democratic group. The group was great, but what I saw of the state party soured me on the Democratic Party. After six years in office, I stepped down -- and shortly went back to being unenrolled.
72 yr old, NYC, absolutely not ranking Cuomo, the anti Mamdani fliers choking my recycle bin to the contrary not withstanding. He's not my son of a bitch.
Have to comment on the irony of younger voters rejecting Biden, when their beloved Bernie stuck with him to the end (as did AOC). I guess Trump isn't the only one not able to distinguish between "vibes" and policy. I'll note Shawn Fain endorsed both Biden and Mamdani.
I live in NJ where we just had a competitive Democratic primary for governor. While Mikie Sherrill, the establishment candidate won resoundingly, the turnout was significantly higher than the turnout in the Republican primary. Why? Because all factions within the Democratic Party felt their candidate could win, be it Sherrill, Baraka, Fulop, Gottheimer, Spiller or Sweeney. Thus far, the NJ Democrats are playing nice in the sandbox-an absolute must if we hope to win in November.
I’m not seeing the same in NYC. The entitled Cuomo and corrupt Adams will run as independents.
I’m not sure who I would vote for if I lived in NYC. But I do note Michelle Yu, a committed progressive, won in Boston and the lights still seem to come on there!!!
If Mamdani supports a global intifada, that’s a ridiculous thing to say, period.
But if he believes Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza with direct support from the US, he’s not wrong. That, per se, doesn’t make him anti-Israel or anti-Semitic or un-American. In fact, there is nothing more American than loudly registering dissent against your own government’s actions.
Many Americans are justifiably appalled by the genocide in Gaza and if that translates into support for Mamdani, that’s quite understandable.
Well, he DOES support a global intifada, as it happens. He also couldn't be bothered to vote "aye" on a resolution to say "the Holocaust was bad." These aren't hard issues to land on the moral side of, and he failed miserably on both.
His opposition to the war in Gaza is understandable. His broader antisemitism isn't.
Well, that is worrisome. I need to learn what 'global intifada' means. It's very distressing to me that our country seems so black-and-white now on the issue of Israel and GAZA... i.e., one is either an Islamaphobe or Antisemitic. Good Lord, can't one support the Jewish and the Palestinian people both, while decrying what their governments are doing?
The depressing thing is that the leading candidates represent both ends of what's wrong with the Democratic party--self-satisfied old machine politicians and self absorbed "progressives." It's terribly sad when there are clearly several in the large field who would be infinitely better than either of the leading candidates, but because politics is now somewhere between TV entertainment and a video game, the choice is between the old or the new song and dance, with the genuine need for things like more housing getting short shrift.
I strongly agree that Dems—if they favor someone besides Mamdani—should keep it respectful when criticizing his positions and experience.
That said, in the vast swaths of the electorate, the tag of “socialist” is poisonous. Whether deserved or not, that’s a fact. Anyone who decides to call themselves a Democratic Socialist is either from a district where a ham sandwich calling themselves a democrat could get elected (AOC) or doesn’t understand majoritarian politics.
Please spare me the Bernie argument. The only person worse than Bernie at picking candidates is Trump. Those few who win are usually out of their depth as practical politicians (Brandon Johnson). The list of failures? Andrew Gillum (who by losing gave us Ron DeSantis), Teachout, Canova, D’Allesandro, Perrielo, etc.
The American left has tended to be so electorally marginal in most parts of the country that it all too often focuses on supporting symbolic candidates. These are people who may meet their various litmus tests but in crucial ways have no hope of winning a race.
This mentality can lead to all manner of dysfunctions, such as rejecting conventional campaign practices because they are evil. Or blaming "corporate Democrats" for sabotaging their losing campaigns instead of learning how to run them more competently. I have also seen activist groups trumpet as a moral victory a candidate who received only 10 percent of a primary vote.
I get the idea that running for office isn't always about winning -- it can also be a means of building popularity for new policy ideas. If you look back in American history, leftist candidates who never came close to winning elections have helped to introduce the country to a variety of policy ideas that today are embraced by the Democratic party's establishment.
This is the social-change process in action, which is why I don't agree with some "centrist" groups whose main purpose in life seems to be to attack the left wing of the party. A healthy democracy needs a strong left -- and Bernie Sanders in particular has played an important role in building its power base in recent years.
The next developmental step that the left may need to take is to shift from running symbolic candidates to actually winning races. Here I suspect that a new generation of leaders such as AOC may be more attuned to the moment than Sanders (although he has been doing some good work in mobilizing grassroots opposition to Trump 2.0).
I agree with much of what you say. I agree that Progressives are important to the party in that they bring in new ideas, are more sensitive to social justice issues and the marginalized. But their candidates seem to be activists more than practical politicians. Bernie, for all his work, has never successfully sponsored major legislation. While I admire much about AOC, she seems like a hothouse flower, in that her politics makes her successful in her progressive district, but not sure she would have the skills (or desire) to make the compromises needed to survive in a purple district.
Tom, I'm not suggesting that we put AOC on a pedestal, but simply that she shows signs of being a bit better at coalition building than Sanders (who did a poor job in the 2020 primaries of cultivating support with the Black community).
Could AOC win a U.S. Senate seat in New York? At this point I'm skeptical, but she's also still pretty young. I think that she needs to decide whether she wants to be a leader of the progressive movement or a more mainstream politician. If AOC does the latter, she will likely be cancelled by more lefty activists.
Movements have developmental arcs much like people. They don't come out of the box fully formed -- and generally have to learn through trial and error. To make matters worse, all too often each generation insists on reinventing the wheel rather than learning from its elders.
As a case in point, over at Brian Tyler Cohen's Substack I was just cussed out by a progressive for . . . something. Social media may not be the best way of discussing strategy, but it seems to have become a major way of doing so.
Respectfully, this isn't great, Dan. I agree that party support for Cuomo should be off the table. But in any sane and rational world, Mamdani's obvious animus toward Jewish Americans should be a dealbreaker in his case as well.
Opposition to war in Gaza -- fine. But calling for a global intifada is NOT fine, and can't be explained away on the basis of mistranslation or semantics, at a moment when Jews have already been violently physically targeted for harm and murder in places like Boulder and DC. And why would ANYONE fail to vote "aye" on a resolution that simply says "the Holocaust was bad," much less a man now running to lead a city with one of the largest Jewish populations on Earth? These aren't hard issues to get right, but somehow he managed to blow them both.
I'm honestly saddened by your glib dismissal of Mamdani's antisemitism as unworthy of consideration, beyond a single passing mention. Perhaps a future Message Box could consider why this isn't an instant "game over" for young New York voters, the broader implications of the fact that it isn't, and most importantly, how the Democratic Party can work to reverse the trend.
Cuomo has so much baggage as he was such a star in the beginning of COVID and crashed and burned, then crawled under a rock to wait out the fallout. I’m astonished he is being welcomed back and supported by high ranking Dems. I’m thinking David Hogg is on the right track to shake the Dems up.
Thank you for weighing in, Dan. I am concerned about Mamdami's views regarding "global intifada " (his words, not mine) but I will consider putting him in my rankings after Myrie. I just DO NOT want Cuomo under any circumstances.
I see that as trying not to be sensationalist. I don't think he wishes harm on anyone, and will be receptive to all new yorkers fears equally while staying focused on the cities issues. If intifada just means struggle or revolution, many people can take it with them and turn it to mean different things, some peaceful, some very much not.
There are certainly New Yorkers who will be receptive to "global intifada" (and others who will be terrified of same). Whatever it means in Arabic, there's no way to make it sound less threatening in English, except to people who side with the Palestinians already.
You have a great screen name. Been a JDMcD fan since 1967.
My wife and I take our boat down the Intracoastal to the Keys every other year or so. We always stay at Bahia Mar for a night. They used to have slip F-18 permanently reserved for McGee’s return. Since a big remodel, that’s been reduced to a commemorative plaque in the dock master’s office, but still cool.
Thanks, I just started rereading McGee novels for umpteeth time and some is pretty dated but his insights into rampant development and consumerism hold up well
Yes, I chuckle every time I re-read one of the books, and he mentions dressing in polyester pants, an open shirt and an ascot so as to impress someone. But the dialogue is natural and unstilted, the characters are three dimensional, and the plots hum tight along. Great books.
As a middle-aged female Dem, I am thoroughly offended by the [male] establishment support of Cuomo. The fact that he is even able to run again with any kind of support speaks volumes. Jim Clyburn and Bill Clinton? How dare they. So unbelievably tone deaf. I’m getting tired of the powers that be stepping on us women or taking us for granted. This is the last straw for me. I will still vote for Democrats - we HAVE to beat Trump and MAGA - but I am changing my party affiliation to Independent. Democrats: ‘Afraid of a Label’ - says it all right now, doesn’t it?
Independents can’t vote in the Democratic primary. In NYC, the Democratic Primary usually determines our next mayor. Bill and Jim supporting a sex offender is not a good look (Jeffery Epstein)
Thank you, but NPP voters can vote in Primaries in California, which is where I’m from, if they request a partisan ballot. At least, that’s my understanding - I’ll find out for sure before I switch. I’m just getting so tired of national party figures and wealthy donors in both parties putting their weighted fingers on the scale, ESPECIALLY in support of bullies and abusers - and Cuomo is both. And they’ve all come out of the woodwork since MAGA has made the abuse of women and non-white groups ‘great again.’ There’s no excuse for this, and it shouldn’t be tolerated in the Democratic party. I hope New Yorkers vote accordingly.
Thank you for expressing this Dan. It’s embarrassing frankly to watch the Dem Party actively work to elect Cuomo to anything! He is disgusting and a terrible leader. Regardless of what you think of his policies, Mamdani is doing what politicos have been begging dem candidates to do: communicate well and with everyone (he is knocking on doors and doing interviews and podcasts) and be creative in policy ideas, be willing to try things that could help people/solve problems. The Bulwark peeps seem to think if he is elected and is a failure (like they say Brandon Johnson is in Chicago), the story will get nationalized and make it harder for US voters to consider dem candidates as competent. I find this argument pretty weak as having a current mayor under investigation and in Trump’s back pocket is not exactly helpful either.
Sarah, from the Bulwark, hypothetically ranked Ted Cruz over Zohran Mamdani. Even as an uneducated joke that’s awful. Cruz is known to be a creepy asshat at best, while Zohran is kind, smart, and thoughtful. A sweet guy. So even if she didn’t know anything about his policies it reeks of Islamophobia. That says all I need to know about The Bulwark.
it was a pretty awful ranking and i just don’t understand her kneejerk reaction against Mamdani.
also i really do not consider the Bulwark Islamophobic. I think DSA is not in their comfort zone. Tim did have Mamdani on the FYPod for an interview which was very interesting.
I’m not sure if the Bulwark is Islamophobic , but I think that’s what contributed to her kneejerk response to Tim’s prodding. I saw the Mamdani interview with Tim and the FYPod. Tim was respectful and asked good conservative questions and the FYPod guy was hysterical.
Brandon Johnson is a disaster in Chicago. Doesn’t mean Mamdani will be. Recycling Cuomo does seem to be thumbing the nose at young voters and a potential rehab of the Dem party.
Crime down to 60 year low in Chi. He’s doing fine. City looks amazing vibrant. People everywhere. Good restaurants summer fireworks on the lake. It’s great
To a large degree, the Democratic Party should blame Cuomo and Bill Clinton for Mamdani’s popularity. And they should do some soul searching to evaluate the enthusiasm Mamdani’s candidacy has generated.
I live in NJ but I live close enough to NYC to care about what goes on there. For one of the greatest cities in the world, the past few mayors have been abysmal. They have been men who only cared about their self interests and not the majority of New Yorkers who make the city run. Cuomo would be a disastrous choice and only perpetuate this trend. Establishment Dems need to sit down and get out of the way and let a new generation take over. Let the true backbone of New York City - the working and middle class - have the ability to live and thrive in their city.
And I would ask these Establishment Dems, if having a rapist in the White House is appalling to you, why is what Cuomo did ok?
First, for those of you who are concerned about Mamdani and anti-Semitism, I strongly urge you to read M. Gessen's very smart essay in the Times today. (Gift link.) https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/opinion/antisemitism-new-york-city-mayor.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RU8.D5e0.LKUygD5r10eN&smid=url-share
I live in Brooklyn, so I've been tuned into this election for almost a year and find it enormously frustrating. Cuomo seems to be benefitting from the same amnesia that voters got about Trump. He was credibly accused of sexual harassment, used taxpayer dollars to settle those lawsuits, and has several covid-related scandals attached to him, on top of being a governor who ushered in some of the policy that is responsible for what ails the city now. Also, he hasn't lived in the city since the '90s and used AI to write some of his policy positions. He wants power, he doesn't have new ideas. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the NY Dem party establishment has rallied around him. (The depth of my disappointment in Kirsten Gillibrand in particular is hard to measure. Real deep.) (I've loathed Cuomo so long I voted for Cynthia Nixon when she primaried him. I think he's a power-hungry bully exploiting his father's good name in the state.)
But it is frustrating that the party machine fell over themselves to endorse this disgrace when there are a lot of great candidates running. (I'd be happy with any of the progressives running, to be honest. Zellnor Myrie is my guy, but he didn't really break through, alas.) Why is the state party boosting these scandal-plagued "centrist" candidates when progressives with big ideas are pushed out? Why are the Third Way folks so afraid of big ideas? In my opinion, the Dem brand is in the toilet because a decade of small change and incrementalism that didn't really solve people's problems is what people are mad about. It's not like Trump was offering some middle-of-the-road agenda. As misguided and impossible as his agenda was, Trump had big ideas, and I think that's what some people responded to. And I, as a middle aged lady who has been a registered Dem in NYC for more than 20 years, am pretty fed up with the state party sidelining good candidates in favor of men like Cuomo, or continuing to prop up Schumer even though he's proven he's not up to the task of opposing Trump. THAT is why base voters are mad at the Dems. It's not fear of progressive policy. (Sorry for ranting. I have a lot of feelings.)
Party organizations, state or national, don’t sideline candidates, or promote them (in the rare instances when they do, it’s a scandal). That hasn’t been their function in 70 years.
There are lots of uninspiring candidates, candidates who can’t fundraise, and those with ho-hum ideas. There are those who overcome past scandals—deserved or not—and whose name recognition is very high.
It’s not the “Third Way folks” who are looking askance at Mamdani. It is those who hesitate on handing the city to someone with no executive experience.
I will grant you that the machine doesn't exist the way it used to, but most of the party establishment in NY ran to endorse Cuomo. A man who, you know, had to resign in disgrace after being credibly accused of sexual harassment. The establishment could have lined up behind any of the other candidates—if not Mamdani, then Lander, Myrie, or Adrienne Adams—but no, they're backing Cuomo, and the message they're sending is basically "sit down kids, we want more of the same, no new ideas here."
And it is, in fact, Third Way. Politico posted a memo they wrote, the tone of which is, frankly, "we're terrified of change or rocking the boat."
Yes, but Third Way may back one candidate over another, but they are hardly responsible for each candidate’s standing in the polls.
That’s a consequence of the voter’s decisions—whether they want to gamble on a novice with perhaps some good ideas or a known quantity with demonstrated executive ability and perhaps a grubby personal history.
Today’s primary may surprise us all, but it appears voters favor experience and are overlooking the personal faults.
Either way, we can hardly lay the blame at the feet of the party or endorsers.
Democratic motto we don't want. "More of the same"
hey, I'm not a young voter but the DNC is pushing me into political exile. I've voted Democratic from my first election in 1976, but the party's total inability to grasp the reality of our time, its unique perils for the republic and our rights, and its seeming obsession with centrism to the exclusion of ideas that have become popular even with Republicans—and the Democrats' seeming blindness to the need to retire most of the elders and endorse the future by supporting younger candidates—have alienated voters of all ages.
so we had one of our two parties die by suicide in fealty to Trump, and now the unshakeable wrongness of the Democratic Party is strangling it, which leaves us with no functioning party to do what it can to steer us in this era of chaos and danger.
the last thing I expected to confront in this plague time is that the Democratic Party would fall apart so sadly, a victim of its own fears and consultants.
I think you are confusing some lackluster, poor, or inexperienced individual candidates with the Dem Party organization. The party raises money, makes voter lists, and schedules calendar events. It doesn’t determine who’s a candidate, decide which issues to run on, or determine messages. I think your complaints properly rest with shitty individual candidates.
You are writing the Democratic party off too far, too hard. I wish they would do better--but what would that mean in this landscape?
Pay more attention to what's happening in the states and at the local level. That's where Democratic strength and vision is, not with the DNC. Follow the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State (DASS) and the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA). Pay attention to what the Democratic governors are doing: holding the line against far right. (DGA = Democratic Governors Association.)
I've voted Democratic since 1972. Since my state (MA) has an open primary, I regularly voted in Democratic primaries although I was unenrolled in any party. After the 2016 election (during which I campaigned for Hillary Clinton and especially for some excellent young Democrats running for local and legislative offices), I registered as a Dem and became an officer in my local Democratic group. The group was great, but what I saw of the state party soured me on the Democratic Party. After six years in office, I stepped down -- and shortly went back to being unenrolled.
72 yr old, NYC, absolutely not ranking Cuomo, the anti Mamdani fliers choking my recycle bin to the contrary not withstanding. He's not my son of a bitch.
Have to comment on the irony of younger voters rejecting Biden, when their beloved Bernie stuck with him to the end (as did AOC). I guess Trump isn't the only one not able to distinguish between "vibes" and policy. I'll note Shawn Fain endorsed both Biden and Mamdani.
Anerikkka. So completely battered by fascist propaganda we're afraid of the word "socialist"...Rhetoric in a free society...
Amen Dan!!!
I live in NJ where we just had a competitive Democratic primary for governor. While Mikie Sherrill, the establishment candidate won resoundingly, the turnout was significantly higher than the turnout in the Republican primary. Why? Because all factions within the Democratic Party felt their candidate could win, be it Sherrill, Baraka, Fulop, Gottheimer, Spiller or Sweeney. Thus far, the NJ Democrats are playing nice in the sandbox-an absolute must if we hope to win in November.
I’m not seeing the same in NYC. The entitled Cuomo and corrupt Adams will run as independents.
I’m not sure who I would vote for if I lived in NYC. But I do note Michelle Yu, a committed progressive, won in Boston and the lights still seem to come on there!!!
If Mamdani supports a global intifada, that’s a ridiculous thing to say, period.
But if he believes Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza with direct support from the US, he’s not wrong. That, per se, doesn’t make him anti-Israel or anti-Semitic or un-American. In fact, there is nothing more American than loudly registering dissent against your own government’s actions.
Many Americans are justifiably appalled by the genocide in Gaza and if that translates into support for Mamdani, that’s quite understandable.
Well, he DOES support a global intifada, as it happens. He also couldn't be bothered to vote "aye" on a resolution to say "the Holocaust was bad." These aren't hard issues to land on the moral side of, and he failed miserably on both.
His opposition to the war in Gaza is understandable. His broader antisemitism isn't.
Well, that is worrisome. I need to learn what 'global intifada' means. It's very distressing to me that our country seems so black-and-white now on the issue of Israel and GAZA... i.e., one is either an Islamaphobe or Antisemitic. Good Lord, can't one support the Jewish and the Palestinian people both, while decrying what their governments are doing?
As do huge swaths of you g voters. That’s the point
The depressing thing is that the leading candidates represent both ends of what's wrong with the Democratic party--self-satisfied old machine politicians and self absorbed "progressives." It's terribly sad when there are clearly several in the large field who would be infinitely better than either of the leading candidates, but because politics is now somewhere between TV entertainment and a video game, the choice is between the old or the new song and dance, with the genuine need for things like more housing getting short shrift.
Great comment.
I heard that housing was one of the things Mamdani was planning to address, but I could be wrong... need to learn more.
I strongly agree that Dems—if they favor someone besides Mamdani—should keep it respectful when criticizing his positions and experience.
That said, in the vast swaths of the electorate, the tag of “socialist” is poisonous. Whether deserved or not, that’s a fact. Anyone who decides to call themselves a Democratic Socialist is either from a district where a ham sandwich calling themselves a democrat could get elected (AOC) or doesn’t understand majoritarian politics.
Please spare me the Bernie argument. The only person worse than Bernie at picking candidates is Trump. Those few who win are usually out of their depth as practical politicians (Brandon Johnson). The list of failures? Andrew Gillum (who by losing gave us Ron DeSantis), Teachout, Canova, D’Allesandro, Perrielo, etc.
The American left has tended to be so electorally marginal in most parts of the country that it all too often focuses on supporting symbolic candidates. These are people who may meet their various litmus tests but in crucial ways have no hope of winning a race.
This mentality can lead to all manner of dysfunctions, such as rejecting conventional campaign practices because they are evil. Or blaming "corporate Democrats" for sabotaging their losing campaigns instead of learning how to run them more competently. I have also seen activist groups trumpet as a moral victory a candidate who received only 10 percent of a primary vote.
I get the idea that running for office isn't always about winning -- it can also be a means of building popularity for new policy ideas. If you look back in American history, leftist candidates who never came close to winning elections have helped to introduce the country to a variety of policy ideas that today are embraced by the Democratic party's establishment.
This is the social-change process in action, which is why I don't agree with some "centrist" groups whose main purpose in life seems to be to attack the left wing of the party. A healthy democracy needs a strong left -- and Bernie Sanders in particular has played an important role in building its power base in recent years.
The next developmental step that the left may need to take is to shift from running symbolic candidates to actually winning races. Here I suspect that a new generation of leaders such as AOC may be more attuned to the moment than Sanders (although he has been doing some good work in mobilizing grassroots opposition to Trump 2.0).
I agree with much of what you say. I agree that Progressives are important to the party in that they bring in new ideas, are more sensitive to social justice issues and the marginalized. But their candidates seem to be activists more than practical politicians. Bernie, for all his work, has never successfully sponsored major legislation. While I admire much about AOC, she seems like a hothouse flower, in that her politics makes her successful in her progressive district, but not sure she would have the skills (or desire) to make the compromises needed to survive in a purple district.
Tom, I'm not suggesting that we put AOC on a pedestal, but simply that she shows signs of being a bit better at coalition building than Sanders (who did a poor job in the 2020 primaries of cultivating support with the Black community).
Could AOC win a U.S. Senate seat in New York? At this point I'm skeptical, but she's also still pretty young. I think that she needs to decide whether she wants to be a leader of the progressive movement or a more mainstream politician. If AOC does the latter, she will likely be cancelled by more lefty activists.
Movements have developmental arcs much like people. They don't come out of the box fully formed -- and generally have to learn through trial and error. To make matters worse, all too often each generation insists on reinventing the wheel rather than learning from its elders.
As a case in point, over at Brian Tyler Cohen's Substack I was just cussed out by a progressive for . . . something. Social media may not be the best way of discussing strategy, but it seems to have become a major way of doing so.
Respectfully, this isn't great, Dan. I agree that party support for Cuomo should be off the table. But in any sane and rational world, Mamdani's obvious animus toward Jewish Americans should be a dealbreaker in his case as well.
Opposition to war in Gaza -- fine. But calling for a global intifada is NOT fine, and can't be explained away on the basis of mistranslation or semantics, at a moment when Jews have already been violently physically targeted for harm and murder in places like Boulder and DC. And why would ANYONE fail to vote "aye" on a resolution that simply says "the Holocaust was bad," much less a man now running to lead a city with one of the largest Jewish populations on Earth? These aren't hard issues to get right, but somehow he managed to blow them both.
I'm honestly saddened by your glib dismissal of Mamdani's antisemitism as unworthy of consideration, beyond a single passing mention. Perhaps a future Message Box could consider why this isn't an instant "game over" for young New York voters, the broader implications of the fact that it isn't, and most importantly, how the Democratic Party can work to reverse the trend.
Cuomo has so much baggage as he was such a star in the beginning of COVID and crashed and burned, then crawled under a rock to wait out the fallout. I’m astonished he is being welcomed back and supported by high ranking Dems. I’m thinking David Hogg is on the right track to shake the Dems up.
Thank you for weighing in, Dan. I am concerned about Mamdami's views regarding "global intifada " (his words, not mine) but I will consider putting him in my rankings after Myrie. I just DO NOT want Cuomo under any circumstances.
I see that as trying not to be sensationalist. I don't think he wishes harm on anyone, and will be receptive to all new yorkers fears equally while staying focused on the cities issues. If intifada just means struggle or revolution, many people can take it with them and turn it to mean different things, some peaceful, some very much not.
There are certainly New Yorkers who will be receptive to "global intifada" (and others who will be terrified of same). Whatever it means in Arabic, there's no way to make it sound less threatening in English, except to people who side with the Palestinians already.
This is so depressing
You have a great screen name. Been a JDMcD fan since 1967.
My wife and I take our boat down the Intracoastal to the Keys every other year or so. We always stay at Bahia Mar for a night. They used to have slip F-18 permanently reserved for McGee’s return. Since a big remodel, that’s been reduced to a commemorative plaque in the dock master’s office, but still cool.
Thanks, I just started rereading McGee novels for umpteeth time and some is pretty dated but his insights into rampant development and consumerism hold up well
Yes, I chuckle every time I re-read one of the books, and he mentions dressing in polyester pants, an open shirt and an ascot so as to impress someone. But the dialogue is natural and unstilted, the characters are three dimensional, and the plots hum tight along. Great books.