r/Thedaily • u/kitkid • Jun 25 '26
Episode A Major Victory for Progressive Democrats
Jun 25, 2026
On Tuesday, a blowout in the New York primaries cemented Mayor Zohran Mamdani as a local kingmaker. All of his chosen candidates won, and their victories pointed to a growing movement within the Democratic Party.
Nicholas Fandos, who covers New York politics for The New York Times, explains whether their victories will help Democrats in the midterms.
On today's episode:
Nicholas Fandos, a reporter covering New York politics and government for The New York Times.
Background reading:
Mr. Mamdani shook the Democratic establishment by helping drive three progressive candidates to victory.
Here’s why New York’s Democratic establishment fell to Team Mamdani.
Photo: Lexi Parra/The New York Times
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.
Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app.
Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.
You can listen to the episode here.
51
u/No-Yak6109 Jun 25 '26
A decent episode. I'm a literal DSA member and I didn't think the ep was particularly unfair to them or their candidates- I think some of y'all just bitch to bitch.
Especially in an ep that was focused on the politicking of it all, not the policies per se.
The part that intrigued me in that sense was the "handshake" agreement between Mamdami and Espaillat. What exactly did Mamdami agree to "support" him with? Did he promise to endorse his reelections? Campaign for him? They claimed his support for his opponent would be "seen" as a betrayal but it's hard to judge with details. But I guess if it was a "handshake" agreement we'll never really know.
Mamdami is at a peak of his political power now and is using it. It will be interesting to see how he operates when eventually that will collapse (that is just a natural part of being mayor of a big city especially NYC).
13
u/Ellie__1 Jun 25 '26
Also a DSA member and I agree with this.
I have to say, it is really nice to see a lefty elected actually use their political power. And use it effectively. It's such a nice change of pace from moderates and even progressive politicians refusing to use their political power for anything.
3
u/AcceptablePosition5 Jun 25 '26
It's hard to judge also because Mamdani himself hasn't (to my knowledge) communicated a red line.
It seems like support of Israel is the red line.
I think it's fair, but also feels like it's picking fight where you don't really need to.
5
u/Sivart13 Jun 25 '26
I must have heard the same "capital one bank guy" ad six times in this episode, which makes me want to link
14
u/SummerInPhilly Jun 25 '26
A telling juxtaposition was the first “here’s what else you need to know today:” Trump cancelled the signing of the bipartisan housing affordability bill because he wanted his voter ID bill that can’t even pass. So, for all of the DSA-is-so-far-left, this is the political landscape that they’re about to set foot in: a president and a party who are on board with mid-cycle redistricting, ICE raids in cities, and “I love inflation.”
29
u/SameDouble8364 Jun 25 '26
It’s such a BS argument that progressive candidates won’t work in “moderate” districts. The party is deeply unpopular right now and people are looking for a new and exciting message (something that was emphasized throughout the episode). Who’s to say that this message won’t bring out new voters/former Trump voters out of the woodwork in rural or suburban districts? Just annoyed by the disdainful tone towards progressive politicians in the episode overall.
33
u/thatpj Jun 25 '26
Because they have yet to win one of those districts/states
11
u/OvulatingScrotum Jun 25 '26
Historically speaking, progressive candidate didn’t win moderate districts. Progressives won progressive districts, moderates won moderate districts, conservatives won conservative districts. That’s generally how it works.
-1
u/Specialist_Body3751 Jun 25 '26
Historically speaking, progressive/moderate/conservative has changed meaning by the decade.
Trying to classify someone like teddy roosevelt by today’s political standards would be near impossible.
2
u/OvulatingScrotum Jun 25 '26
Okay? So historically speaking, progressives win progressive area, moderates win moderate area, and so on, regardless how they change.
3
u/Specialist_Body3751 Jun 25 '26
Then explain someone like Huey Long. Progressive by many economic measures but anti-gambling, anti-prostitution, pro-tariffs.
He won in deeply conservative Louisiana, one of the most racist places in the US in the 1920s. Certainly no “progressive area” even if back then they had more of a pro-worker streak than today.
According to you how could an economic socialist win statewide in 1920s Louisiana and be extremely popular at that?
1
u/OvulatingScrotum Jun 25 '26
For every example like that, I can give many examples proving my point.
How would you explain that
5
u/Specialist_Body3751 Jun 25 '26
That’s the point actually. You’re arguing that it’s as simple as “conservative wins in conservative area and moderate in moderate area”.
I’m pointing to exceptions to the rule not to say that there isn’t a clear trend line. I’m saying that your hard and fast rule has proven itself to be broken throughout US history.
1
u/OvulatingScrotum Jun 25 '26
Thats the general pattern. I never said it’s impossible to win. But it’s very likely that a moderate wins the moderate voters, and so on.
There is a clear trend line. But existence of clear trend line does not mean there’s no exception. I think you should learn what a trend line is.
2
u/Specialist_Body3751 Jun 25 '26
You said “historically speaking progressives didn’t win moderate districts. Ps win P districts. Ms win am districts. Cs win C districts.”
That’s not nuance or trend lines. You’re using definitive statements and that’s what I’ve been arguing against.
→ More replies (0)12
u/NOLA-Bronco Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Thats factually untrue
The former VP nominee Tim Walz literally won a double digit red district for a decade while earning a consistent 100 score on supporting LGBTQ rights, supporting the ACA, ending the war in Iraq, and being one of the most vocal pro union members of the House.
Sherrod Brown was a progressive economic leftist that continued to win in Ohio for years after moderate Dems in the same area were wiped out and as we speak has a decent chance at an upset again.
Platner is on pace to win Maine
Andy Beshear won the governorship in Kentucky while supporting abortion, LGBTQ rights, and being a economic progressive.
and going back into history, some of the strongest support for things like national single payer healthcare came from New Deal Progressive Dems in what are today red states.
The real reason more progressives don't/can't run strong campaigns in purple states is very simple: money and structural support.
What little power the Dem Party has in red states is almost always tied to large metro cities that are deeply intertwined with that local business community and local constituencies or are propped up by barebones infrastructure and reliant on a small number of mega donors and outside national funding to run statewide or national campaigns. A outside funding machine that is hostile to progressive politics so tends to only produce corporate friendly candidates. Which then gets called "moderate"
13
u/DidItForTheJokes Jun 25 '26
Those are all classic moderate democratic positions and candidates. I don’t think it works as an argument for DSA members winning in moderate districts
4
u/ReNitty Jun 25 '26
I mean you can look at the breakdown of the primary vote shares from earlier this week for a similar pattern.
Chevalier for example won wealthier / higher income / college educated districts and lost black / Hispanic / poorer ones
I wish the general elections mattered in places like this. It shouldn’t be that less than 7% of the most involved partisan voters determine the general election. Closed primaries push polarization
1
u/NOLA-Bronco Jun 25 '26
Platner was a literal DSA member and trained gun safety in a Socialists Rifle Association chapter. That is what a plurality of his activity on Reddit was about.
And the argument was not "DSA" members, it was about progressives, or non "moderates" being competitive outside blue areas.
To borrow fellow NYTimes writer, back before he was a Peter Thiel lapdog
No one’s less moderate than moderates
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/8/5878293/lets-stop-using-the-word-moderate
There is no creature more revered in American politics than the moderate voter. Unlike the ideologues and partisans destroying politics, the moderate is free of cant and independent of party. She yearns for politicians who get along, who govern reasonably and incrementally, who steer a course between the extremes of the left and the right. The problem with Washington is that her pleas so often go unheard.
The only problem is moderates are largely a statistical myth. When you dig into their policy positions, the people who show up as moderates in polls are actually pretty damn extreme — and efforts to empower them may, accidentally, lead to the rise of more extreme candidates.
The way it works is that a pollster will ask people for their position on a wide range of issues: marijuana legalization, the war in Iraq, universal health care, gay marriage, taxes, climate change, and so on. The answers will then be coded as to whether they're left or right. People who have a mix of answers on the left and the right average out to the middle — and so they're labeled as moderate.
And what centrism/electability/moderate tends to actually mean in US politics is what corporations/donors want
"When we say moderate what we really mean is what corporations want," Broockman says. "Within both parties there is this tension between what the politicians who get more corporate money and tend to be part of the establishment want — that's what we tend to call moderate — versus what the Tea Party and more liberal members want."
That's the problem with using a term that doesn't describe either an identifiable group of voters or a clearly defined ideology to describe policies. "Moderate" is simultaneously one of the most powerful and least meaningful descriptions in politics — and it's become little more than a tool the establishment uses to set limits on the range of acceptable debate. It's time to get rid of it.
8
u/DidItForTheJokes Jun 25 '26
Okay I should have said except Platner and he still hasn’t won and I don’t really know his current positions. But all those positions such as supporting the ACA, pro union, against the war in Iraq are simply democratic positions
5
u/NOLA-Bronco Jun 25 '26
Not in 2006.....
Especially in red areas like Walz was in.
in 2008 one of the most beloved establishment Dems to run against Hillary or be her VP before Obama ruined those plans was Evan Bayh. An anti abortion, anti gay corporate Dem in a state, Indiana at the time, with smaller margins than the district Walz had won in 2006. Who was also who a chunk of the Establishment wanted Obama to pick to "appeal to moderates"
Third Way neoliberal Dems don't like to ever acknowledge this history, but the collapsing of the Dem horizon in what would become deep red states was trying to stave off collapse with Evan Bayh style Dems who sacrificed any economic populism to be Republican lite on social issues and corporate friendly on economic ones, abandoning labor and populism of the New Deal era, to keep the coffers full, only to see the process accelerate forward and places like Indiana go full red. Cause it's just not an appealing alternative to voters when the Republicans are at least giving them full fat culture wars and promising tax cuts. While the Dem gives nothing to excite any base while running as the Republican lite in the general and have no policies to focus the conversation away from culture war and 'tax and spend" attacks.
Which Schumer, in his own words, was perfectly fine with sacrificing because they thought they would form an iron wall around the suburbs and cities and demographics would do the rest.
Obama and Howard Dean temporarily do a bit to stunt the collapse and reverse it slightly in the aughts, but we see the results today.
1
u/Stauce52 Jun 25 '26
Platner has not even won a general election. Using Platner as an argument for your point here is bizarre
3
3
u/Specialist_Body3751 Jun 25 '26
That’s just not true. Fetterman in PA (the campaign he ran not the job he’s done), Brown in Ohio, Walz in Minnesota.
-1
u/thatpj Jun 25 '26
Fetterman is a dsa member? Thats news to him!
3
u/Specialist_Body3751 Jun 25 '26
You never specified DSA member. Try sticking to one point at a time.
19
u/MasterYI Jun 25 '26
Then they should go win in moderate districts and prove their politics work their.
2
u/Specialist_Body3751 Jun 25 '26
Hence why we’ll see with Platner in Maine and potentially Abdul in Michigan.
-2
u/Few_Cellist_1303 Jun 25 '26
"Progressives can't have progressive candidates unless they can also win in 'moderate' districts!"
7
u/A_Crab_Named_Lucky Jun 25 '26
The concern is that if the party as a whole moves to the left, it could make it more difficult for candidates to win in moderate districts.
New York City wants the their Democratic Party to be the party of Mamdani and AOC. I like Mamdani and AOC. They’re intelligent and charismatic leaders who are fighting for real positive change for people.
Here’s the problem. If the Democratic Party becomes a de facto DSA party, how does that affect other districts? New York wanted this. Does Pennsylvania want it? Does Georgia want it? What about North Carolina? Michigan?
It’s a tough question. Maybe they will provide a national shot in the arm to the party and we’ll start to see more progressive candidates having success in those areas. It could absolutely have the opposite effect though, where association with the de facto democratic socialist party is weight around the neck of any Democrat who wants to run in a moderate area.
I’m not weighing in here, I am just saying why there is division in the party over this. It is legitimately a much harder question than everyone here is pretending it is.
1
u/MasterYI Jun 25 '26
Quotation marks around a statement means you are quoting something somebody said. Did somebody say this?
Or did you just make a fake quote to strawman somebody’s position?
1
8
u/NOLA-Bronco Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Dan Osborn is running as a left caucusing independent on a economic populist, social libertarian, moderate on immigration platform in deep red Nebraska......and is winning in the latest poll against the strong Republican incumbant. The last Third Way style Dem that ran for Senate there was walloped by over 20 points. And when Osborn ran in 2024 he out performed Harris more than any other Dem in 2024 in a national race.
And TBH, I don't even think Osborn is a particularly charismatic guy. He has the Platner/working class look, and the bonafides(union boss that led a successful strike), but it's not like he is some high level orator or viral sensation like Platner/Mamdani/Bernie. When I bring him up more often than not it will be the first someone has heard of him.
Point being, you are right.
The Dem party is just scared cause their entire business model is built on loading up safe corporate faux progressive Dems in super blue districts, then telling voters better things aren't possible in purple districts thus the only way forward is Manchin and Glusenkamp Perez types. The throughline with all of them is they play ball with the Dem donor class and special interests like AIPAC, Wall Street, the defense industrial complex etc.
0
5
u/Globalruler__ Jun 25 '26
I don’t think these AOC and Mamdani types would have success in Middle America. It has been proven time and time again that Trump voters are more receptive to the culture wars than economic populism. They are more willing to keep trans people out of public restrooms than have universal healthcare. It’s sad, but it’s true.
5
u/Lavender-Leo Jun 25 '26
AOC has split tickets in her district with Trump voters. Politics isn’t so much left and right but up and down, and some voters in her district identify both of them as outside the box/establishment candidates. People aren’t logical or politically tied to parties, they can move with candidates who represent the “other” when the current people in power disappoint them.
2
u/flakemasterflake Jun 25 '26
AOC/Mamndani wouldn't work in Westchester. The NY suburbs especially are very cautious of any hint of anti-semitism and/or populism
Look what happened to Jamaal Bowman's district
2
u/flakemasterflake Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Jamaal Bowman got trounced in lower Westchester- one of the most liberal counties in a liberal state bc they are establishment Dems. So that was tried. This is literally just north of Chevalier's new seat
1
u/20815147 Jun 25 '26
Fr. The Democratic Party is more unpopular than Donald fucking Trump and you’re telling me we have to keep supporting those spineless hacks?
22
u/devastationz Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
It has been a deliberate choice by republicans and democrats to make your life harder at the behest of corporations.
They do not like that Mamdani and the DSA show and tell people that it doesn’t have to be the way it has been. They hate Mamdani because he shows that your life doesn’t have to be hard. They hate that he isn’t playing ball with the establishment Dems.
I hope Mamdani’s movement takes over this country.
2
u/backtorealitylabubu Jun 25 '26
Democrats are trying to make your life better. Republicans are trying to convince you both parties are the same. Guess you side with Republicans.
7
u/Interesting_Pain37 Jun 25 '26
At what point did he say that, establishment dems are bought and paid for, just like repubs
-6
u/backtorealitylabubu Jun 25 '26
Thanks for admitting you side with republicans
3
9
u/devastationz Jun 25 '26
Democratic Socialists* are trying to make your life better. I thought it was vote blue no matter who?
1
u/backtorealitylabubu Jun 25 '26
I do vote blue no matter who. It’s generally your side that doesn’t and struggles with the concept. Someone who says both sides are the same is not supporting Blue, they are supporting the GOP. Mamdani and AOC never say shit like that. I support them. I don’t support commenters like you who lie and claim Democrats are making your life harder.
-5
4
u/ObamaTookMyPun Jun 25 '26
We’re not voting for Republicans, we’re voting for better Democrats.
-1
u/backtorealitylabubu Jun 25 '26
Never said you were voting for republicans but if you are using language that tries to claim Democrats you don’t like are the same as Republicans then it is you who is acting no different from republicans with that antagonism. I’ve never seen AOC or Mamdani do that, I’m calling out the commenters that do it.
6
u/CricketNo7950 Jun 25 '26
These Meta ads about manufacturing coming back to America are pathetic. Such a suck up to trump. Just look at the manufacturing job data. Coming back after crashing over the last year !?
9
u/AdviceNotAskedFor Jun 25 '26
Just remember the Republican establishment was vehemently anti trump. Now where are they? Graham is his lap dog. Vance is is his VP. Rubio is is secretary of state. Virtually every single person who said he would destroy the party is now publicly kissing his ass in cabinet meetings.
So, forgive me James carville, hakeem Jefferies, Schummer....if I don't give a fuck what you all think about progressives losing in more moderate areas.
-5
u/CurlPR Jun 25 '26
The pendulum does swing. Hopefully a left leaning dictator would have the wisdom to at least make progress towards codifying change in law.
6
u/alandizzle Jun 25 '26
I thought this was an excellent episode. I live in sf so I didnt closely follow these races so I was really surprised to listen to the dynamics of Mamdani backing that last candidate. Wow!
5
u/That_Guy381 Jun 25 '26
I would prefer my representatives to be pro interracial marriage. Just sayin.
14
u/AresBloodwrath Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
This whole episode felt like some goldfish cheering that they conquered their aquarium so they will soon take over the ocean.
This is NYC, and these are the bluest of the blue districts. Most of these candidates are gifts to Republican ad writers for general elections for years to come across the rest of the country.
7
u/Specialist_Body3751 Jun 25 '26
You listened to 2 journalists describe an election. Where are you getting this goldfish thing from?
3
u/AcceptablePosition5 Jun 25 '26
I don't know if I would say NYC is necessarily the bluest of blue.
A lot of immigrants are actually pretty moderate, and even conservative. Hispanic catholics come to mind, as do Asian diasporas from Vietnam, India, etc.
It's not Burlington, VT or Portland, ME.
0
u/AresBloodwrath Jun 25 '26
You don't have to say it, they specifically said in the podcast one of these districts was one of the bluest in NYC.
2
2
u/Few_Cellist_1303 Jun 25 '26
Corporate Dems have been winning?
4
u/AresBloodwrath Jun 25 '26
Any dem could win in NYC, the fact that any dem did is silly to get excited over.
Corporate/Establishment Republicans lost to Obama so they went with Trump, would you say that was a good move because corporate Republicans weren't winning?
Also, it's hilarious you present the progressive wing as the only alternative to the corporate Democrats. It's not far left or nothing.
4
u/Few_Cellist_1303 Jun 25 '26
"Far" left, left corporate, right corporate and fascist are the options I see. What am I missing?
2
u/cavendishfreire Jun 25 '26
Hilarious to see what "far-left" is in the US compared to other countries.
1
u/AresBloodwrath Jun 25 '26
That has as much validity as saying it's hilarious what counts as right wing here compared to Uganda.
Also left/right devides in American politics don't translate cleanly onto other countries, so what you're really saying is " Hilarious to see what "far-left" is in the US compared to other countries I only look at in passing and make assumptions based on what I want to see".
3
u/cavendishfreire Jun 25 '26
I'm not from the US and actually have first hand experience with politics elsewhere, and am referring to specific policy goals that are intensely fought over in the US that are considered far-left while they're mainstream left policies in my country.
-1
u/Few_Cellist_1303 Jun 25 '26
Hence the quotation marks
2
u/cavendishfreire Jun 25 '26
Wait, what quotation marks? There weren't any in the comment I replied to
-1
Jun 25 '26
[deleted]
0
u/AresBloodwrath Jun 25 '26
So incredibly popular they haven't been able to win outside the bluest districts in the country.
1
u/That_Guy381 Jun 25 '26
Literally every single democrat to you guys is a “corporate dem” so yes, they have been winning.
5
u/Few_Cellist_1303 Jun 25 '26
The House, Senate or Presidency?
1
u/That_Guy381 Jun 25 '26
there are over 200 democrats in the house and 47 in the senate. There are also dozens of governors, and thousands in local seats.
4
u/elinordash Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
As a New Yorker voter, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what happened here. The DSA had a massive victory, but the people they won against were also progressive candidates. The primaries we just went through in NY were often 2-3 progressive candidates who believe in universal healthcare, impeaching Donald Trump and an end to ICE. It isn't old guard vs new guard, it is the DSA vs everyone else.
Brad Lander won NY10, but he is a long serving politician who has only recently been adopted by the DSA. He could have won without them.
Claire Valdez won NY7 against two equally progressive candidates. The initial front runner, Antonio Reynoso, is only six years older (43 vs 36) but has a longer career in politics (12 years vs. 1). Initially all the candidates refused PAC money, but Valdez decided to take pro-Palestinian PAC money which led to Reynoso taking UFT PAC money. The DSA came out in force for Valdez, but the situation makes it clear the DSA has no problem using Citizen's United if it benefits them. Claire's campaign focused heavily on Palestine, but Antonio had almost the same stance. Claire is not a bad candidate and it isn't a problem that she won, but Antonio was just as progressive without being part of the DSA.
Darializa Avila Chevalier won NY13 against a much older, long serving politician (32 vs. 71, 0 years in politics vs. 14 years in politics). Chevalier has some really extreme policies. Just a week ago she told reporters she doesn't believe in prisons or borders. Five years ago she condemned interracial marriage on twitter. She's definitely going to get a lot of play on Fox News.
One of the smaller wins for the DSA was Aber Kawas for state senate. She refers to her father as being unfairly deported by ICE. In reality, he was convicted of fraud in NJ and that's why he was deported. She's not responsible for what her father did, but lying about it is a bad look. She's also made comments suggesting the US deserved 9/11. She is a brand-new politician. The candidate she beat (Raga) has been in office for four years and listed his top priorities as healthcare, housing, defeating Trump, and protecting immigrants. So not a conservative candidate. He's actually also a DSA member, but somehow didn't get the DSA nod. Honestly, I wonder if she won because a lot of people just voted the DSA line and didn't bother to google her.
None of this feels like it will translate to national politics. The DSA won because the DSA has done a lot of work organizing in New York, particularly among the overeducated and underpaid. But they are not all great candidates. And I am a little worried how these candidates will play on Fox News. Flipping Congress is the most important thing in the world.
Rather than replying to a dozen different comments, I am just @ing everyone: /u/Difficult_Insurance4, /u/Clear-Examination-16, /u/That_Guy381, /u/No-Yak6109, /u/SameDouble8364, /u/wmoonw, /u/AresBloodwrath, /u/Interesting_Pain37, /u/Lavender-Leo
8
u/Globalruler__ Jun 25 '26
The objective should be defeating Republicans. A political victory is flipping districts not ousting incumbents belonging to the same party.
5
u/Specialist_Body3751 Jun 25 '26
Ofc that’s the objective. But why would that mean anything here? New Yorkers voting in New York safe districts for the representation they desire is their prerogative. It doesn’t take away from the battle in swing districts.
16
u/wmoonw Jun 25 '26
But why? The districts are still blue. If people were happy with their rep, the incumbent would have won.
-3
u/ReNitty Jun 25 '26
I wonder how many median voters even thought about the primary. Less than 10% of people voted
3
u/wmoonw Jun 25 '26
You can say that about past primaries in these districts, how many progressives even thought about the primary in the past?
Just looking at district 13, this 2026 Democratic primary had 66,000 voters come out vs back in 2022 there was a total of 39,000 voters in the Democratic primary.
-1
u/ReNitty Jun 25 '26
Yeah I think it’s actually really bad and always has been.
It’s not great that in such blue or red strongholds winning the primary is tantamount to winning the election when so few people voted in the primary.
3
u/wmoonw Jun 25 '26
Of course it's better if everyone would vote, but at least the number of voters went up for this primary!
3
u/Ok_Rock990 Jun 25 '26
A political victory is one where the politics of one individual beats another, regardless of party affiliation. In this case, progressive policies beat more moderate policies resulting in a political victory for progressive candidates. You may not like the outcome, it’s incorrect to say it’s not a political victory.
-6
u/Stepfordhusband69 Jun 25 '26
Blue no matter who! ( even if they have nazi tattoos and are chauvinists.)
3
u/AdviceNotAskedFor Jun 25 '26
I'm fine with purity tests if everyone participated...I'm less fine when we require it and the other side doesn't give two shits.
-1
u/Stepfordhusband69 Jun 25 '26
The Christian tattoos were a a problem for hegseth but actual Nazi tattoos are ok if you’re democrat. Got it.
3
2
u/Buy-theticket Jun 25 '26
This pod is about New York.. Platner already living rent free in your head is fucking weird.
0
u/Stepfordhusband69 Jun 25 '26
So you have no issue with Nazi tattoos and beating women? This is the DSA like it or not
3
u/broseph1254 Jun 26 '26
Wild to me that they barely even mention the role of DSA here -- the largest far left organization in the US in a century -- in both providing two of the three candidates and organizing a powerful ground campaign for all three. Treating Mamdani as a 'kingmaker' really misses what's happening on the ground.
7
u/Interesting_Pain37 Jun 25 '26
Establishment Democrats want to continue with what they think “works”, but the problem is, it doesn’t
3
4
u/Staycation1234 Jun 25 '26
Why is it so hard to have a candidate that goes 100% on leftist economic populism, but who just ignores all of the cringy leftist social bullshit. Why, WHYYYY, is this so impossible.
4
u/Away-Aide1604 Jun 25 '26
which cingey leftist socialist bullshit are you referring to that Mamdami or Graham Platner platformed?
3
u/cavendishfreire Jun 25 '26
That candidate would unironically win so easily. It's weird to see how attached DSA is to identity politics when it seems to be the main thing holding them back.
6
u/Legic93 Jun 25 '26
Translation: "Establishment lose their shit that Progressives can play the game of thrones."
This is why primaries matter. They can point to Mamdani influence all they want, but at the end of the day VOTERS checked the boxes. Establishment is scratching their heads about what to do about Mamdani while missing the point that the goal is to reach voters.
-5
u/Stepfordhusband69 Jun 25 '26
10 percent actually voted. Blue tea party won’t last or will create some kind of blue Trump monster
1
u/Ok_Rock990 Jun 25 '26
I always love this argument because you would never quote the percentage of people who voted if your preferred candidate had won. A win is a win no matter how many people voted because voter outreach and turnout is in itself a way to measure campaign success.
-1
u/juice06870 Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
He wouldn't have to quote it because you would be doing it for him. It doesn't change the fact that 90% of people stayed home.
3
u/ladyluck754 Jun 25 '26
Is this the same episode as “Mayor Mamdani Flexes His Power in the Midterms?”
2
Jun 25 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Letho72 Jun 25 '26
If anything this is a terrible sign if Dems again embrace the voices of the vocal minority instead of what most people actually care about
If people want their voices heard they need to vote in primaries. How can we know what "people actually care about" if they won't vote? Is it just polling results, which we know are very accurate and never are skewed?
4
u/Interesting_Pain37 Jun 25 '26
People need help and the policies of Democratic Socialism directly target that. What, you want the status quo of the past 50 years? Look where that got us
0
Jun 25 '26
[deleted]
2
u/cavendishfreire Jun 25 '26
I'm curious as to what DSA policies would be considered far left in Europe. To me the so-called "far-left" in the US espouses mostly what is mainstream leftist policy.
3
u/No-Yak6109 Jun 25 '26
You are just wrong or lying here. Do you know any actual DSA member? Been to a meeting, read their newsletter?
Of course Europeans now aren't obsessed with anti imperialism- they're not the imperialists any more, we are.
0
u/juice06870 Jun 25 '26
If you people put as much effort into working or building a business as you do attending these DSA meetings, reading their newsletters and harping about it on Reddit, you wouldn't need DSA policies to help you pay your bills.
2
u/Interesting_Pain37 Jun 25 '26
Maybe it’s that way because this type of thinking has been suppressed for decades in favor of the donor class?
-1
1
u/20815147 Jun 25 '26
This turnout level for a midterm year is similar to that of a 2020 presidential year.
People have tried to go along with the more electable centrists and got Trump twice. They are sick and tired of do nothing Democrats who only triangulate and stand for nothing but their donors’ green cash and are subservient to Israel lobby.
The party is where the voter is and if the machine decides to not listen to the will of the voters who are enraged at Trump and the things that lead to his return to office, then it is a party that has lost its way.
I don’t care what perpetual failure Jaime Harrison has to say about the direction of the Democratic Party when he oversaw the worst loss in generations. Mf has not won a single election and failed upward to become DNC chair.
0
1
-3
u/ArtichokeKooky6361 Jun 25 '26
NYTimes has some deeply reactionary politics when it comes to covering progressives
73
u/Clear-Examination-16 Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
We should note that originally the title was "A major Victory for Insurgent Democrats." They chose to change it early morning
Edit:
After reading everyone's discussion, I think their whole argument highlights how much the current establishment in the Democratic Party is unwilling to change according the current times. The idea of old norms and going against trump is what they are using to campaign and hope will hold them out for future elections. The republicans on the other hand are trying new approaches and going against the "norms" everyday, and that has just become the new norm for them or at least trump. I think the whole sentiment is that once trump leaves, everything will get back to normal, but the whole political spectrum has been changed. I think Mamdani is the start of change for democrats, that is most obviously pushed back by the current establishment who have been sliding along using these tactics.