New York 6/23 Primary Results Megathread

[Abolish ICE]

Are there any chance that winner in NY-17 isn't Jones and winner in NY-16 isn't Torres?

NY-16 is Engel vs Bowman - Torres is in NY-15. The NYT has called none of these districts, but Wasserman has called '15 and '17 so I feel pretty same in the assumption that Jones and Torres will win. Even if Jones and Torres did somehow lose, it would probably have to be to the people currently in second place - so DNC deputy chair Michael Blake in NY-15 and Adam Schleifer in NY-17, not Diaz or Carlucci.

The NY congressional races to watch seriously now are NY-16 where Engel might still make a comeback and NY-12, where incumbent Carolyn Maloney is favoured but could still lose.

This. Don't count your chickens like unfortunately Wasserman right now - he didn't mention absentees at all last night. There is a reason why the AP hasn't called yep. I know it seems unlikely, but congresswoman Kim reminds everyone that a lead on election night, especially in areas fill of absentee voting affluent whites, is not a victory.

Very good point, thanks for the reminder!

[Sir Mohamed]

I'm glad the DC fossil Engel has lost. We need more fresh faces in congress to get things on wages, healthcare, climate and infrastructure done. Since this is one of the the most liberal districts, so why not having a very liberal rep here? In suburban districts, Dems should run more centrist candidates to maintain competitive. More diversity among congressional Dems in terms of personal background and ideology from "social democratic" to centrist is a healthy thing.

Agree, but i have a sincere question: which sort of Democratic candidate would you run, say, in TX-01 or TX-36? Ancestrally Democratic, but mostly very conservative...  Left-wing, because "no one will win anyway, so - why not?". Or someone different?

If I was living in said districts, I would vote for the candidate I thought would most deserve my vote. I'm not that fixed on ideological labels because I believe vast majority of Dems have much more in common than separates them. There are real progressives in congress I like, as there are so-called moderates I like, too. On the contrary, I neither like Manchin nor Omar/Tlaib (but like AOC/Pressley). Anyway, I don't think any candidate from either wing would stand a big chance in named districts. Perhaps some socially conservative, economically left populist would do better than expected. Basically the opposite of Orange County, CA, where culturally liberal and economically moderate Dems fare better (though this area is much more D-friendly, especially in recent cycles).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm glad the DC fossil Engel has lost. We need more fresh faces in congress to get things on wages, healthcare, climate and infrastructure done. Since this is one of the the most liberal districts, so why not having a very liberal rep here? In suburban districts, Dems should run more centrist candidates to maintain competitive. More diversity among congressional Dems in terms of personal background and ideology from "social democratic" to centrist is a healthy thing.

Agree, but i have a sincere question: which sort of Democratic candidate would you run, say, in TX-01 or TX-36? Ancestrally Democratic, but mostly very conservative...  Left-wing, because "no one will win anyway, so - why not?". Or someone different?

If I was living in said districts, I would vote for the candidate I thought would most deserve my vote. I'm not that fixed on ideological labels because I believe vast majority of Dems have much more in common than separates them. There are real progressives in congress I like, as there are so-called moderates I like, too. On the contrary, I neither like Manchin nor Omar/Tlaib (but like AOC/Pressley). Anyway, I don't think any candidate from either wing would stand a big chance in named districts. Perhaps some socially conservative, economically left populist would do better than expected. Basically the opposite of Orange County, CA, where culturally liberal and economically moderate Dems fare better (though this area is much more D-friendly, especially in recent cycles).

This. If I thought these rural districts were not wholly impossible but likely R or safe but non-titanium R, I'd look for a pro-gun rights Democrat who had a convincing pathway to inspiring the base while compromising on some historically controversial issues.

A southern rural Dem would be a different beast, but Jared Golden is a good example of a strong rural Democratic candidate.

[Badger]

Wonderful site set up by NYC DSA showing results and precinct maps for all of their endorsed races. Really fun to browse.

http://results.socialists.nyc/full-results.html?district=SD18

The DSA is a model for what the greens should be, if the latter weren't a collection of gadflies, crackpots, and Republican operatives. Work within the Democratic primary system without giving in to the establishment. Acknowledging that working with people who are merely Progressive as opposed to socialist isn't heresy, and Target races they can win with good candidates. All this translates into actual Progressive movements and power to change things, other than simply getting Republicans elected every November.

[Badger]

I'm glad the DC fossil Engel has lost. We need more fresh faces in congress to get things on wages, healthcare, climate and infrastructure done. Since this is one of the the most liberal districts, so why not having a very liberal rep here? In suburban districts, Dems should run more centrist candidates to maintain competitive. More diversity among congressional Dems in terms of personal background and ideology from "social democratic" to centrist is a healthy thing.

Agree, but i have a sincere question: which sort of Democratic candidate would you run, say, in TX-01 or TX-36? Ancestrally Democratic, but mostly very conservative...  Left-wing, because "no one will win anyway, so - why not?". Or someone different?

Of course one would generally support and electable candidate versus say a DS a member in such districts. But what on Earth does that have to do with the primary results for New York City congressional districts?

[smoltchanov]

I'm glad the DC fossil Engel has lost. We need more fresh faces in congress to get things on wages, healthcare, climate and infrastructure done. Since this is one of the the most liberal districts, so why not having a very liberal rep here? In suburban districts, Dems should run more centrist candidates to maintain competitive. More diversity among congressional Dems in terms of personal background and ideology from "social democratic" to centrist is a healthy thing.

Agree, but i have a sincere question: which sort of Democratic candidate would you run, say, in TX-01 or TX-36? Ancestrally Democratic, but mostly very conservative...  Left-wing, because "no one will win anyway, so - why not?". Or someone different?

If I was living in said districts, I would vote for the candidate I thought would most deserve my vote. I'm not that fixed on ideological labels because I believe vast majority of Dems have much more in common than separates them. There are real progressives in congress I like, as there are so-called moderates I like, too. On the contrary, I neither like Manchin nor Omar/Tlaib (but like AOC/Pressley). Anyway, I don't think any candidate from either wing would stand a big chance in named districts. Perhaps some socially conservative, economically left populist would do better than expected. Basically the opposite of Orange County, CA, where culturally liberal and economically moderate Dems fare better (though this area is much more D-friendly, especially in recent cycles).

This. If I thought these rural districts were not wholly impossible but likely R or safe but non-titanium R, I'd look for a pro-gun rights Democrat who had a convincing pathway to inspiring the base while compromising on some historically controversial issues.

A southern rural Dem would be a different beast, but Jared Golden is a good example of a strong rural Democratic candidate.

But these are southern rural districts. Why not southern rural Democrat?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I'm glad the DC fossil Engel has lost. We need more fresh faces in congress to get things on wages, healthcare, climate and infrastructure done. Since this is one of the the most liberal districts, so why not having a very liberal rep here? In suburban districts, Dems should run more centrist candidates to maintain competitive. More diversity among congressional Dems in terms of personal background and ideology from "social democratic" to centrist is a healthy thing.

Agree, but i have a sincere question: which sort of Democratic candidate would you run, say, in TX-01 or TX-36? Ancestrally Democratic, but mostly very conservative...  Left-wing, because "no one will win anyway, so - why not?". Or someone different?

If I was living in said districts, I would vote for the candidate I thought would most deserve my vote. I'm not that fixed on ideological labels because I believe vast majority of Dems have much more in common than separates them. There are real progressives in congress I like, as there are so-called moderates I like, too. On the contrary, I neither like Manchin nor Omar/Tlaib (but like AOC/Pressley). Anyway, I don't think any candidate from either wing would stand a big chance in named districts. Perhaps some socially conservative, economically left populist would do better than expected. Basically the opposite of Orange County, CA, where culturally liberal and economically moderate Dems fare better (though this area is much more D-friendly, especially in recent cycles).

This. If I thought these rural districts were not wholly impossible but likely R or safe but non-titanium R, I'd look for a pro-gun rights Democrat who had a convincing pathway to inspiring the base while compromising on some historically controversial issues.

A southern rural Dem would be a different beast, but Jared Golden is a good example of a strong rural Democratic candidate.

But these are southern rural districts. Why not southern rural Democrat?

I'm saying a southern rural Democrat would need to be very different to Jared Golden to be a good candidate, but there some commonalties to what makes Democrats strong candidates in rural areas and I'd look for a few of those qualities in a southern rural Dem candidate.

There aren't that many elected southern rural Dems who aren't either in majority-minority rural districts or have been incumbents a long time, so in terms of what makes new candidates successful in most rural areas, there's a small pool to draw from.

[smoltchanov]

I'm glad the DC fossil Engel has lost. We need more fresh faces in congress to get things on wages, healthcare, climate and infrastructure done. Since this is one of the the most liberal districts, so why not having a very liberal rep here? In suburban districts, Dems should run more centrist candidates to maintain competitive. More diversity among congressional Dems in terms of personal background and ideology from "social democratic" to centrist is a healthy thing.

Agree, but i have a sincere question: which sort of Democratic candidate would you run, say, in TX-01 or TX-36? Ancestrally Democratic, but mostly very conservative...  Left-wing, because "no one will win anyway, so - why not?". Or someone different?

Of course one would generally support and electable candidate versus say a DS a member in such districts. But what on Earth does that have to do with the primary results for New York City congressional districts?

Nothing. But - results in New York gave ample food for discussion: whether you abide more by ideological criteria, and run, say, "pure progressives", even when they are far from best candidates from electability point of view, or you run candidates most taylored to their districts (say - southern rural Democrats in TX-01 or 36)? Exactly because they may be slightly (or - not so slightly) more electable. Would it be better if Democrats would run some DSA activist (who, most likely, would lose to Tenney), or they are absolutely correct running very moderate (sometimes -even slightly conservative) Brindisi? New York elections raise many "electability vs ideological purity" questions..

[Zaybay]

I'm glad the DC fossil Engel has lost. We need more fresh faces in congress to get things on wages, healthcare, climate and infrastructure done. Since this is one of the the most liberal districts, so why not having a very liberal rep here? In suburban districts, Dems should run more centrist candidates to maintain competitive. More diversity among congressional Dems in terms of personal background and ideology from "social democratic" to centrist is a healthy thing.

Agree, but i have a sincere question: which sort of Democratic candidate would you run, say, in TX-01 or TX-36? Ancestrally Democratic, but mostly very conservative...  Left-wing, because "no one will win anyway, so - why not?". Or someone different?

Of course one would generally support and electable candidate versus say a DS a member in such districts. But what on Earth does that have to do with the primary results for New York City congressional districts?

Nothing. But - results in New York gave ample food for discussion: whether you abide more by ideological criteria, and run, say, "pure progressives", even when they are far from best candidates from electability point of view, or you run candidates most taylored to their districts (say - southern rural Democrats in TX-01 or 36)? Exactly because they may be slightly (or - not so slightly) more electable. Would it be better if Democrats would run some DSA activist (who, most likely, would lose to Tenney), or they are absolutely correct running very moderate (sometimes -even slightly conservative) Brindisi? New York elections raise many "electability vs ideological purity" issues..

This has absolutely nothing to do with the results in NY.

[Jumped off the American Sinking Ship]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1275803793192615943?s=20

[YE]

I wonder what convinced him.

[Gracile]

I wonder what convinced him.

He doesn't think absentees will be enough to carry Engel over the line:

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1275805774896390147

[smoltchanov]

I'm glad the DC fossil Engel has lost. We need more fresh faces in congress to get things on wages, healthcare, climate and infrastructure done. Since this is one of the the most liberal districts, so why not having a very liberal rep here? In suburban districts, Dems should run more centrist candidates to maintain competitive. More diversity among congressional Dems in terms of personal background and ideology from "social democratic" to centrist is a healthy thing.

Agree, but i have a sincere question: which sort of Democratic candidate would you run, say, in TX-01 or TX-36? Ancestrally Democratic, but mostly very conservative...  Left-wing, because "no one will win anyway, so - why not?". Or someone different?

Of course one would generally support and electable candidate versus say a DS a member in such districts. But what on Earth does that have to do with the primary results for New York City congressional districts?

Nothing. But - results in New York gave ample food for discussion: whether you abide more by ideological criteria, and run, say, "pure progressives", even when they are far from best candidates from electability point of view, or you run candidates most taylored to their districts (say - southern rural Democrats in TX-01 or 36)? Exactly because they may be slightly (or - not so slightly) more electable. Would it be better if Democrats would run some DSA activist (who, most likely, would lose to Tenney), or they are absolutely correct running very moderate (sometimes -even slightly conservative) Brindisi? New York elections raise many "electability vs ideological purity" issues..

This has absolutely nothing to do with the results in NY.

it's your opinion. Mine is different.

[Gass3268]

DDHQ has called it for Bowman:

https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1275825981094350848?s=20

[Consuming is good, it's what we're made for]

DDHQ has called it for Bowman:

https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1275825981094350848?s=20

LETS GOOOOOOOO

[Not Me, Us]

DDHQ has called it for Bowman:

https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1275825981094350848?s=20

What a fantastic night for progressives. Only thing that would make it better is if Booker wins in KY.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

DDHQ has called it for Bowman:

https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1275825981094350848?s=20

What a fantastic night for progressives. Only thing that would make it better is if Booker wins in KY.

They really missed an opportunity leaving the last IDC member unopposed in their state senate primary.

[KaiserDave]

Bowman won, though I anticipate the margin to narrow.

Clarke won, which isn't all that surprising, she dramatically expanded her constituent outreach since 2018.

[Lognog]

Bowman won, though I anticipate the margin to narrow.

Clarke won, which isn't all that surprising, she dramatically expanded her constituent outreach since 2018.

That's the thing about these challenges, even when they don't succeed they force these politicians to pay way more attention to the people they are supposed to represent by getting them to change their position on issues and getting them in the district more

[Canis]

Very Good night for the progressive movement

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I'm glad the DC fossil Engel has lost. We need more fresh faces in congress to get things on wages, healthcare, climate and infrastructure done. Since this is one of the the most liberal districts, so why not having a very liberal rep here? In suburban districts, Dems should run more centrist candidates to maintain competitive. More diversity among congressional Dems in terms of personal background and ideology from "social democratic" to centrist is a healthy thing.

Just so we're clear, NY-16 definitely isn't some uberprogressive urban district. It's F**king Westchester. I'm also going to have to disagree with you on the fresh faces for their own sake thing. Engel is good at actually legislating. What's more important--being an effective foreign relations chair or holding a bunch of town halls back home? I choose the former. Anyway, I'm not particularly bothered by the outcome of this race and the hand wringing on both sides is like a mirror image of when progressives thought they had no future in the party on Super Tuesday.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Only thing that would make it better is if Booker wins in KY.

I don't get why people are so invested in who gets to lose to McConnell and become politically irrelevant again.

[anthonyjg]

Only thing that would make it better is if Booker wins in KY.

I don't get why people are so invested in who gets to lose to McConnell and become politically irrelevant again.

Personally, I’d just like to see a more vocal opposition coming out of red states, particularly those with strong labor roots. I think Booker helps accomplish that more than McGrath.

And what a great night out of New York. Will be interesting to see how margins play out.

[Lognog]

Only thing that would make it better is if Booker wins in KY.

I don't get why people are so invested in who gets to lose to McConnell and become politically irrelevant again.

From a practical standpoint, I totally agree. In fact, it might be a race that democrats waste money in where it could be more effectively spent.

But the symbolism of this race should not be lost. Mitch McConnell represents everything Democrats hate about the current system of government: corruption by corporations, byzantine rules that prevent anything from being done, and political cowardliness. Who runs against Mitch McConnell should be a clear rebuke to his governing strategy and offer a starkly different vision for the nation. The eyes on the entire country will be on this race, whether or not it is truly competitive, and so long as they are we should put forward the best our party has to offer.

[Abolish ICE]

Only thing that would make it better is if Booker wins in KY.

I don't get why people are so invested in who gets to lose to McConnell and become politically irrelevant again.

From a practical standpoint, I totally agree. In fact, it might be a race that democrats waste money in where it could be more effectively spent.

But the symbolism of this race should not be lost. Mitch McConnell represents everything Democrats hate about the current system of government: corruption by corporations, byzantine rules that prevent anything from being done, and political cowardliness. Who runs against Mitch McConnell should be a clear rebuke to his governing strategy and offer a starkly different vision for the nation. The eyes on the entire country will be on this race, whether or not it is truly competitive, and so long as they are we should put forward the best our party has to offer.

No one outside of Rose Twitter and places like Atlas cares who gets to lose by 30% + to McConnell.