Dem
47
GOP
53
A few more reader comments about last week's elections in New York:
R.M. in New York City, NY: It is not apparent from the high-level results being reported, but Israel was potentially the deciding issue in NY-12, just as it was in many other NYC primaries. There was a large field of candidates beyond the four mentioned in your summary. Alex Bores' position was to stop providing offensive weapons to Israel, but he declined to take a stronger stance, as he knew that this district includes probably the most Zionist Democrats in the country, Bores tried to thread the needle. The problem for him is there are also a handful of folks on the other end of that position living in the district. And many of those folks voted for Nina Schwalbe who, called Israel's actions a genocide. Schwalbe pulled in roughly 7,300 votes and Bores lost to Micah Lasher by 4,300.
Our Take: When you try to be all things to all people...
J.M. in Chicago, IL: Thank you for you breakdown of the recent New Yawk Primary elections. I'm writing about the potential Democratic split you mentioned, a product of the ongoing aggression by Israeli's Government and Military.
I capitalized those words because it seems to me that is a path forward for Deze Dems. The stunningly wonderful letter written by the Iran National Soccer Team illustrates what I, and so many others (including yuze at Electoral-Vote.com) know; there are no/or few issues between the people in different countries, only the governments and/or militaries, who whip up hatred and controversy to advance their agendas, or protect their budgets/graft, or distract from real problems and the documents showing their close association with a sex trafficker/pedophile.
So, instead of casting a wide Anti-Israel net, why can't Democratic candidates say they support the People of Israel, and Israel's defense, but they do not, and will not, support the aggression and slaughter of Palestinians, Lebanese, or any other civilians, by Israel's Government and Military? Is that too nuanced for voters to follow?
Our Take: It apparently was in 2024. Perhaps not in 2026.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: Although The New York Times is already painting the successes of the DSA candidates as the work of "Mamdani the kingmaker," the truth is more complex. Each of the congressional DSA candidates excelled at "retail politics." For example, early on I received a personal phone call from Claire Valdez, who talked to me like a politically astute, caring next door neighbor. I continued to receive steady communications from her. Brad Lander, who was already well known as a two-term NYC comptroller, had already demonstrated his progressive credentials by not once but repeatedly showing up at immigration court, monitoring and protesting ICE gestapo tactics and in one case being arrested for alleged interference.
My union invited the candidates from the competitive congressional races to show up and speak to the membership. Lander's opponent didn't even bother to show. To his credit, Rep. Adriano Espaillat (the 5-term congressman defeated by Avila Chevalier) did show, but was utterly lackluster, and could present no vision beyond bringing a bit of pork to his district. By contrast, Chevalier was bursting with passion and clarity—speaking of concrete measures that were a mix of the aspirational and the attainable with a Democratic majority in Congress. She also spoke to the deep fury so many of us have at not only the Trump administration, but an establishment that includes centrist Democrats.
Valdez, while not as passionate, and much smoother and wonkier, was also full of policy specifics. Her opponent, term-limited Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, was practically tongue-tied. He couldn't name one accomplishment (or initiative) in 4 years of being Borough President. (OK, it's mainly a bullsh** position, but he has the bully pulpit: he could have opposed ICE visibly, or pushed back against the political firing of CUNY faculty, etc.). Nor could he outline a legislative agenda. The best he could do was tell us "I love you all."
Yes, Mamdani was an important factor, but these are anti-incumbent times and Chevalier, Lander, and Valdez were all top-notch candidates. I was not surprised that they won.
Also, lost in all the Mamdani-as-Kingmaker hoopla is the interesting fact that months ago, early on in the primary process, Mamdani put the kibosh on a DSA-backed candidate challenge to Jeffries. Given the success of the anti-incumbents yesterday, Jeffries, who is no fool, must be silently thanking the mayor. Or maybe not silently. I wouldn't be surprised if he expects to collect from Jeffries for that huge favor. And perhaps Mamdani should, in light of that, be thought of as the "King-Protector" instead of the "Kingmaker."
Our Take: There's going to be an excellent book written about the NYC politics of this era, one of these days.
J.E. in Manhattan, NY: I will bet that a lot of New York Times columnists are going to clutch their pearls at how the "far left" in New York has done (and how well!). As I am writing this all the candidates Zohran Mamdani endorsed—Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez—have won their races.
There's a lot of significance, in my opinion, that Ariano Espaillat lost to Chevalier. Espaillat himself replaced Charlie Rangel, and Rangel represented a certain kind of politics in New York City; an ability to bring projects home coupled with a level of corruption that people tolerated because of the pork. Espaillat's election was exciting at the time because the then-new district boundaries set in 2010 created a 55% Latino district, but while far less corrupt than Rangel was, he was still rather traditional in the way he worked in Washington. Clearly the dissatisfaction with incumbents has even extended to intra-party elections.
Micah Lasher's victory (a race in which there was no real "progressive" standard bearer) shows that there's a real change in the way Democrats are voting; NY-12's district boundaries got moved in a way that at first blush I'd have expected the primary race to not even include the likes of Bores or Lasher. (And Jack Schlossberg showed everyone his unseriousness. He got about 11% of the vote, and I don't think we will see him in electoral politics again for a bit.)
I'd say that if nothing else, the results suggest that the Democratic rank-and-file has moved to the left of the state and national leadership, at least in the districts around here. Now, I know that a lot of people say "Oh, that's New York," as though New York was some other planet, but New York City is a lot more representative of the country generally than Iowa is. This doesn't mean the Democratic Socialists of America are going to elect candidates all over the country. But I wonder what the future of Democrats looks like in other large cities. There's a level at which the Democratic leadership has accepted the terms of debate set by Republicans and the right, and I would hope that is changing.
As a historical note: Many of the things Zohran Mamdani proposed during his campaign, and that are marks of progressives in New York City—free pre-K, for example, free tuition at CUNY, better funding for libraries, reining in the police—were all (in concept at least) once backed by people like John Lindsay, who was a Republican when he started his political life here. The fact that Democratic Socialists are running on the same policy positions as a Republican once did shows just how far the political discourse in the U.S. has moved rightward.
Our Take: One is reminded of Harry S. Truman's famous observation: "Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people."
M.S. in New York City, NY: As a lifelong New Yorker born in Rochester, educated in Buffalo, and residing in Manhattan, I take issue with your characterization of the center of New York State as "New Yorkalina."
It is, of course, Newyorklahoma.
Our Take: We stand corrected.
Thanks to all of you. We are always happy to have local reports from readers (particularly from readers in Colorado this week). Send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.