They are saying that the Dem primary in NYC is something of a referendum on the future of our party. Huffington.....

[FadedMullet]

......just ran an article that said the following: "That this race is close at all is a blaring alarm for establishment Democrats, especially the party’s most comfortable and sclerotic. If it’s happening to Cuomo, it can happen to them". All of this because Cuomo, with a huge war chest and establishment backing, is in a tight race against democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. What do you think when you read "comfortable and sclerotic" and "democratic socialist" as the political dichotomy the New York voters are choosing between?

[elleng]

1. 'They' should find a different vocabulary.

[JHB]

7. Agreed. "Democratic socialism" misuses the term "socialism". It's "New Deal-ism."

The New Deal is not and never was socialism. That's a RW characterization.

There are three types of people who call the New Deal "socialism":

1) RWers, who call EVERYTHING THEY DON'T LIKE "Socialism";
2) Superlefties, who want to claim credit for the New Deal, even though their ideological ancestors in the 30s and 40s railed against it as a sellout and insufficient, because those people WERE socialists and wanted actual socialism, and the New Deal was too much a compromise for them to tolerate. And
3) People who've picked up the definition from either of the other groups.

[lostincalifornia]

2. No it isn't. Cuomo is not the "litmus" test of anything. There are too many candidates in the race, and rank

choice voting obscures everything.

Rank choice voting is almost as bad as open primaries. It is subject to manipulative efforts.

[AZProgressive]

3. I like the fact it leads to candidates getting along

There is still a left over from the politics of personal destruction between Cuomo and Mamdani but I do like that Mamdani and Lander are getting along which was supposed to be the plus side of RCV.

[FadedMullet]

4. I'd say there are "too many candidates" on the ballot, but also say that rank choice voting helps clear it up.

[iemanja]

5. Ranked choice has nothing to do with the outcome of the first ballot

or the number of candidates. All Dem primaries have multiple candidates, particularly mayoral races in which the only viable party is the Democrats. I know that's not entirely true for NY, but it is for many cities.

You'd have a point if the front runner on the first ballot ended up being eclipsed by another candidate. If NY didn't have ranked choice, Mamdani could have won by a smaller margin.

The one thing about ranked choice is that it puts more responsibility on voters because you select multiple candidates--three in my city.

[newdeal2]

6. Well most of the establishment don't have the personal baggage of Cuomo

Or did HuffPost forget?

[Dorian Gray]

8. Cuomo was a dumbass candidate

for the establishment to back.

Full disclosure: I ranked cuomo and I didn't rank mamdani, so you know where I am coming from in my upcoming rant.

1) I ranked Zellnor Myrie #1. He's our local state senate rep, and I like him. He has progressive fresh ideas and I think he would have been a good choice for the city.

Beyond him, there weren't too many others that inspired me. Stringer was my second choice.

I begrudgingly ranked Cuomo rather than Mamdani mostly bc I think Mamdani has too many "pie in the sky" campaign promises that he can't possibly keep.

Mamdani is a great communicator. He did the grass roots thing really well. And people are sick of the status quo. They like populist candidates with big personalities and promises to shake things up. (It's what's powering MAGA on the right.)

I actually think we're in a moment where AOC could beat Schumer in a primary and win.

The reality of running a city will be much more complicated than Mamdani believes. But before he gets to do that, he has to get through the next field of candidates in the general.

Adams will come in hard as an independent, flouting his record of reduced crime. (Which will be meaningful to constituents.). Adams in not popular bc of his corruption and his Trump adjacent activities, but people in communities here in the city that have seen a reduction in crime may very well happily vote for him over Mamdani.

Mamdani also will struggle with the broader Jewish population here in NYC. He needs to understand the difference between academic dissemination and PR sound bites. "Defending Globalize" the intifada may be defendable as a phrase in multiple way intellectually in an academic setting, but when it comes to running a city that has the largest jewish population outside of Israel... it's probably best to understand their POV and why it's offensive.

Okay, my rant is over. Congrats to Mamdani. The Democratic Party needs to do further self reflection. People don't want what they've been shelling out. And it's time to get ready to take on Adams the independent and Sliwa (who won't be formidable).

[Renew Deal]

9. I don't think so. Cuomo was uniquely offensive.

Now, if Pelosi loses, that’s another story.