u/3dsmax23

I live in NYC. Tuesday was depressing.

We kind of knew Lander would beat Goldman because, apparently, "Biden establishment bad." There were also signs that Valdez was going to beat Reynoso. The highlight, if you can call it that, was Chevalier's victory. Beyond a whole series of unhinged statements and a complete unwillingness to disavow any of them, she just seems like a uniquely unqualified and unserious candidate.

The story immediately told by the right was that "the left," "the Democrats," or whatever all-encompassing term you want to use for normie liberals, are embracing far-left politics. That is simply not true.

Normal working-class New Yorkers did not suddenly wake up and decide they wanted socialism. What happened instead is that DSA and its allies once again proved exceptionally good at winning low-turnout Democratic primaries by mobilizing highly engaged voters while the broader Democratic electorate stayed home.

A few maps from these races help make the point. First, take a quick look at Lander's victory map.

https://preview.redd.it/fozmn2l4gf9h1.png?width=789&format=png&auto=webp&s=929efda8446e9ee2afb95187d1694f8023581423

He performed best in some of the most affluent, highly educated parts of the district. Lander courted Mamdani by supporting him for mayor and clearly hoped to position himself within the new political coalition that has emerged around him. Mamdani ultimately passed on giving him a role in city government, but later endorsed him for Congress.

Lander also leaned heavily into anti-AIPAC politics in an effort to attract the activist left. He himself acknowledged that parts of this politics can veer into antisemitic territory. Or, as he put it "but I have to."

https://preview.redd.it/epkc5drduf9h1.png?width=1204&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d8ec52223fb138984822f38bd6ab0da14b6fddb

The important point here is not that rich people voted for Lander. It is that his coalition was strongest in affluent, highly educated progressive neighborhoods that turn out heavily in primaries. In NY-10, Dan Goldman won the 2022 Democratic primary (open primary with multiple candidates mind you) with about 16,000 votes out of roughly 65,000 to 70,000 primary voters, then went on to win the 2022 general election with well over 100,000 votes. The contrast shows the basic structure of NYC politics: primaries are low-turnout, high-stakes elections that effectively decide the officeholder.

Now look at the district Valdez won. What immediately jumps out is the large blue blob covering South Williamsburg. Those are Satmars (Hasidic Jews wearing big hats for those unfamiliar; very religious and tend to vote as a singular block). They are also relatively poor compared to much of the rest of the district, and they came out overwhelmingly for Reynoso.

https://preview.redd.it/8xjwlmq3hf9h1.png?width=954&format=png&auto=webp&s=826e7b4982fe49688a3a1602ce8fd7ebd1af1a06

Say what you will about Hasidic Jews, and I have plenty of thoughts, but they understand politics and they understand what is good for their communities in the long run. They tend to vote pragmatically, not ideologically, and they often recognize political trends before everyone else does. Orthodox communities were warning for years that parts of the progressive coalition were becoming increasingly hostile to Jewish concerns (Satmars are not Zionist, by the way, and do not use the Star of David because it's the symbol of the state of Israel; there is interesting history there).

Lastly, the lowlight of the evening...

https://preview.redd.it/b7k4xo88hf9h1.png?width=864&format=png&auto=webp&s=02c9cc55faf4f98998fd98857d0f6951435bc3f9

Chevalier carried Harlem while Espaillat dominated the portion of the Bronx that his district covers. Once again, if you begin sorting these districts by income, education, ethnicity, and turnout patterns, a fairly consistent picture starts to emerge.

The decisive voters in these races were often not the traditional working-class Democratic base. They were younger, highly engaged, politically active voters who participate in low-turnout primaries at much higher rates than everyone else.

https://preview.redd.it/9th2s12khf9h1.png?width=2000&format=png&auto=webp&s=1d5cfc234113f24303dbc5d75dbff26a438a8385

Lastly, someone has already floated the idea of primarying Ritchie Torres next cycle if he "doesn't behave" (LOL?).

Here is the thing. Torres represents a huge portion of Bronx - one of the poorest districts in America. It is heavily working class, heavily Black and Hispanic, and far removed from the affluent progressive neighborhoods that have fueled some of these insurgent campaigns.

Torres delivers for his district in small, incremental ways. He often announce his successes to lower electricity bills here, reduce childcare burdens there, and address quality-of-life issues that matter to his constituents. He has also earned substantial support from many Jewish voters across the city because, whatever his motivations may be, he has never thrown Jews under the bus when it would have been politically convenient (unlike Lander). For these resons, I suspect Torres would be an extraordinarily difficult target for the DSA coalition to unseat.

So what do you do?

I do not think the answer is changing the rules or putting barriers in front of DSA candidates. Rule number one is that in many of these districts, the primary is the election. If normie Democrats want to win, working-class voters have to show up. The answer is not changing the rules. It is turning out enough voters to beat the highly engaged activist vote.

Rule number two is that district compositions have changed, and that matters. Some seats are naturally more favorable to the activist left than others. Mamdani did not endorse candidates everywhere. He endorsed candidates in races that were winnable. That was smart politics.

It sucks to watch our version of MTG head to Congress, but that is where we are right now.

The good news is that these races were not inevitable. There were more than enough votes available to produce different outcomes. The problem was not that the city suddenly became socialist. The problem was that one side organized, one side turned out, and the broader Democratic electorate stayed home.

Which brings us right back to rule number one. In these districts, the primary is the election.