New York 6/23 Primary Results Megathread

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

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.

If that were true, McGraft wouldn't have gotten so much $ by now. Resistance boomers won't buy into the possibility of a Booker win nearly as easily and so her loss is arguably going to be good for fundraising in Senate races with less appetising but beatable opponents. Additionally, the KY Democratic nominee running a campaign local Democrats can be proud of could set up them up for a run at some other office later.

[Jumped off the American Sinking Ship]

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

This 100x, it’s why I hate incumbents going unopposed.

[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.

If that were true, McGraft wouldn't have gotten so much $ by now. Resistance boomers won't buy into the possibility of a Booker win nearly as easily and so her loss is arguably going to be good for fundraising in Senate races with less appetising but beatable opponents. Additionally, the KY Democratic nominee running a campaign local Democrats can be proud of could set up them up for a run at some other office later.

Personally, I think McGrift is a better nickname for her.  In any case, both her and Booker are lousy candidates who are only getting $$ b/c they’re running against the turtle.

[President Johnson]

Meh, very mixed results. Engel was kind of a lackluster guy who neglected his district it seems, so I hope Bowman doesn't turn out to be Omar level bad. If he's more like Warren or Pressely progressive, I'd be comfortable with it. Same with Jones. I'm glad Nadler has won, he's a fine chair of the judiciary committee.

However, I don't see these wins endanger Cuomo or Schumer in 2022.

[Abolish ICE]

I hope all these new congresspersons are more like AOC and Pressley than Omar and Tlaib.

Mondaire Jones and especially Ritchie Torres seem pretty good (better than Pressley or AOC tbh).  Jones seems like a solid progressive who has managed to (from what I've read) thread the needle of harshly condemning the actions of Netanyahu, the illegal settlements, and calling for better living conditions in Palestinian areas without ever (AFAIK) crossing the line between being at least somewhat anti-Israel and being anti-Semitic.  

I mention this because it suggests that Jones is in general someone inclined to acknowledge the nuances in complex and hot-button issues rather than engage in simplistic, buzzword-based demagoguery.  We certainly need more of that in Congress and I'm sure there are other examples of him doing it with other issues, but for brevity's sake, I'll only add that I think he'll turn out to be a pretty effective legislator if that does indeed turn out to be the case.  He may turn out to have been an improvement over Lowey, but we'll see.  Don't wanna put the cart before the horse  

Ritchie Torres seems awesome, period.  The more I research him, the more I like him and I'd be delighted if he became the template going forward for progressive Berniecrats in safe districts.  I could see him becoming a Senator or a member of House leadership someday if he delivers on his potential.  I'd certainly vote for him and I can't wait to see where he goes from here.  Definitely a potential rising star though, that's for sure!

I don't know what Bowman will be like tbh.  On the one hand, I like to try to give folks the benefit of the doubt when I can as general rule even if I sometimes get a little rhetorically OTT here from time to time and Bowman has genuinely impressed me several times during the campaign re: his campaigning skills and seemed like he had a decent shot of winning even before Engel's gaffe (in hindsight, he probably would have won anyway).  

OTOH, he's explicitly and unambiguously allied himself with some really, really bad folks in the specific context of anti-Semitism (ex: a hate group run by a guy who has - IIRC - claimed white supremacy is an intrinsic and definitive feature of being Jewish and went out of his way to defend another anti-Semite who claimed that Jews control the weather) and seems like a bit of a rhetorical bomb-thrower (albeit, so far more AOC style bomb-throwing than Omar-style).  Then again, some of his anti-Semitic associations were in a context where one could argue either way as to whether he knew the full history of the folks he was praising, so I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.  I do think he'll be either an AOC type or a Tlaib/Omar type, but it is hard to say which atm.  

Suraj Patel is a creepy sleeze who has - among other things - made FaceBook posts slobbering over and stating his desire to have sex with a 16 year-old and used fake profiles on dating apps to try to trick young people into meeting up with him ostensibly so he could make campaign pitches to them.  The guy just seems like a first-class sketchball and while I want Maloney primaried as much as anyone, I'm pretty sure Patel would be worse despite Maloney being a corporatist anti-vaxer (*barf*).  We can do so much better here than either of these two tbh.  My guess is that Maloney wins based on what's left to count and where it is from, but we'll see.  

To be fair to Bowman, if you read the IP section of his website it’s pretty nuanced and seems like he understands the need for peace/wants to be constructive. Sounds more like Pressley than any of the others when it comes to Israel.

I found a pretty detailed letter he wrote to a Jewish soon-to-be-constitutant who was seeking clarification about his views and I gotta admit, I was impressed by the tone, content, and general thoughtfulness.  Hopefully, it is reflective of how he’ll approach being a Congressman. 

[scutosaurus]

I warned you all.

https://twitter.com/lilyslynch/status/1275812266324250625

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I warned you all.

https://twitter.com/lilyslynch/status/1275812266324250625

Is this a bit (on your part, that is)? Poe's Law and all.

[scutosaurus]

I warned you all.

https://twitter.com/lilyslynch/status/1275812266324250625

Is this a bit (on your part, that is)? Poe's Law and all.

No. Now that Engel has been defeated by a radical pro-Serb, Kosovo is doomed. We're already seeing the seeds of its destruction being sown within 24 hours of his defeat, just like I predicted here:

If Engel loses, Serbia will annex Kosovo within 24 hours.

Mark my words.

[EastAnglianLefty]

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.

It's D+24, nearly 70% non-white and the bits of Westchester it contains form a continuous part of the NYC urban area. That's pretty uber-progressive.

[Tintrlvr]

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.

It's D+24, nearly 70% non-white and the bits of Westchester it contains form a continuous part of the NYC urban area. That's pretty uber-progressive.

Having a high percentage non-white actually points against being "uber-progressive" relative to the Democratic primary electorate as a whole, at least until very recently. Ocasio-Cortez won her primary in 2018 by dominating the white vote (75%+) and being close to even in the non-white vote, for example.

Anyway, NY-16 is a district that is very polarized between extreme outer-ring urban poverty in some parts of the district (southern Mount Vernon, the NE Bronx, parts of Yonkers) and then really rich suburban areas (Scarsdale, Larchmont, Bronxville, Riverdale). But neither of those groups would be typically categorized as "progressive" voters in Democratic primaries.

[Not Me, Us]

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.

It's D+24, nearly 70% non-white and the bits of Westchester it contains form a continuous part of the NYC urban area. That's pretty uber-progressive.

Having a high percentage non-white actually points against being "uber-progressive" relative to the Democratic primary electorate as a whole, at least until very recently. Ocasio-Cortez won her primary in 2018 by dominating the white vote (75%+) and being close to even in the non-white vote, for example.

Anyway, NY-16 is a district that is very polarized between extreme outer-ring urban poverty in some parts of the district (southern Mount Vernon, the NE Bronx, parts of Yonkers) and then really rich suburban areas (Scarsdale, Larchmont, Bronxville, Riverdale). But neither of those groups would be typically categorized as "progressive" voters in Democratic primaries.

If it isn't a progressive district, why did it just vote for a progressive? Don't you think the people in the district know who best represents them? Obviously if they thought Engel represented them well, he would have won.

[Beet]

Engel is a loser who lost. He's a tired washed up politician who really looks pale and like he needed a vacation as well. And the ridiculous margin should tell you about his political skills. A lot of these people just coast for years collecting big checks from donors without really having to campaign, and it shows. Yesterday progressives swept through many strongholds of the establishment and really gave them a shock throughout the NYC area. Even incumbents who survived were put on notice. This is a sea change and it's driven by young people. I'm hoping the Biden campaign notices and puts a progressive on the ticket.

[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?

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.

OK, so HOW does your post have anything to do with NYC primary results?

[Badger]

I hope all these new congresspersons are more like AOC and Pressley than Omar and Tlaib.

Mondaire Jones and especially Ritchie Torres seem pretty good (better than Pressley or AOC tbh).  Jones seems like a solid progressive who has managed to (from what I've read) thread the needle of harshly condemning the actions of Netanyahu, the illegal settlements, and calling for better living conditions in Palestinian areas without ever (AFAIK) crossing the line between being at least somewhat anti-Israel and being anti-Semitic.  

I mention this because it suggests that Jones is in general someone inclined to acknowledge the nuances in complex and hot-button issues rather than engage in simplistic, buzzword-based demagoguery.  We certainly need more of that in Congress and I'm sure there are other examples of him doing it with other issues, but for brevity's sake, I'll only add that I think he'll turn out to be a pretty effective legislator if that does indeed turn out to be the case.  He may turn out to have been an improvement over Lowey, but we'll see.  Don't wanna put the cart before the horse  

Ritchie Torres seems awesome, period.  The more I research him, the more I like him and I'd be delighted if he became the template going forward for progressive Berniecrats in safe districts.  I could see him becoming a Senator or a member of House leadership someday if he delivers on his potential.  I'd certainly vote for him and I can't wait to see where he goes from here.  Definitely a potential rising star though, that's for sure!

I don't know what Bowman will be like tbh.  On the one hand, I like to try to give folks the benefit of the doubt when I can as general rule even if I sometimes get a little rhetorically OTT here from time to time and Bowman has genuinely impressed me several times during the campaign re: his campaigning skills and seemed like he had a decent shot of winning even before Engel's gaffe (in hindsight, he probably would have won anyway).  

OTOH, he's explicitly and unambiguously allied himself with some really, really bad folks in the specific context of anti-Semitism (ex: a hate group run by a guy who has - IIRC - claimed white supremacy is an intrinsic and definitive feature of being Jewish and went out of his way to defend another anti-Semite who claimed that Jews control the weather) and seems like a bit of a rhetorical bomb-thrower (albeit, so far more AOC style bomb-throwing than Omar-style).  Then again, some of his anti-Semitic associations were in a context where one could argue either way as to whether he knew the full history of the folks he was praising, so I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.  I do think he'll be either an AOC type or a Tlaib/Omar type, but it is hard to say which atm.  

Suraj Patel is a creepy sleeze who has - among other things - made FaceBook posts slobbering over and stating his desire to have sex with a 16 year-old and used fake profiles on dating apps to try to trick young people into meeting up with him ostensibly so he could make campaign pitches to them.  The guy just seems like a first-class sketchball and while I want Maloney primaried as much as anyone, I'm pretty sure Patel would be worse despite Maloney being a corporatist anti-vaxer (*barf*).  We can do so much better here than either of these two tbh.  My guess is that Maloney wins based on what's left to count and where it is from, but we'll see.  

To be fair to Bowman, if you read the IP section of his website it’s pretty nuanced and seems like he understands the need for peace/wants to be constructive. Sounds more like Pressley than any of the others when it comes to Israel.

I found a pretty detailed letter he wrote to a Jewish soon-to-be-constitutant who was seeking clarification about his views and I gotta admit, I was impressed by the tone, content, and general thoughtfulness.  Hopefully, it is reflective of how he’ll approach being a Congressman. 

Cool to hear! Willing to link/post it? (with constituent name redacted of course)

[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.

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.

First, as noted by other coasters, this district is overwhelmingly democratic. I'm not sure what your point about it supposedly not being particularly Progressive is, but if you're implying that this possibly opens the door even a crack for Republicans to take the seat, that's simply farcical.

Second, while if I were to make a list of all of my least favorite elected officials Eliot Engel wouldn't reach even in the top 1000, and probably wouldn't even come into the top 50 Democrats. However, when the dude is being actively supported by Sheldon f****** Adelson and Republican Pacs, he's lost my vote in choosing between him and Bowman.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

An unfortunate consequence of Engel's defeat is that the two most likely successors to his Chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee are Gregory Meeks and Brad Sherman. Brad Sherman has high staff turnover and apparently treats his people badly, but Meeks has some serious and longstanding allegations of corruption.

[Roll Roons]

An unfortunate consequence of Engel's defeat is that the two most likely successors to his Chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee are Gregory Meeks and Brad Sherman. Brad Sherman has high staff turnover and apparently treats his people badly, but Meeks has some serious and longstanding allegations of corruption.

I've heard they might skip those two and have Joaquin take over.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

An unfortunate consequence of Engel's defeat is that the two most likely successors to his Chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs Committee are Gregory Meeks and Brad Sherman. Brad Sherman has high staff turnover and apparently treats his people badly, but Meeks has some serious and longstanding allegations of corruption.

I've heard they might skip those two and have Joaquin take over.

It'd be fantastic but would go against the seniority system which the House leadership loves for self-interested reasons.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Really happy with the Torres victory! A homophobic conservative defeated by a pragmatic progressive gay man. I'm ok with Bowman winning- Engel's loss was entirely his fault- and Jones winning is ok too. Won't really mind if Maloney falls, and glad Clarke won big.

The thing I am worried about is the sometimes kneejerk progressive "primary all incumbents!" thing. I really hope great people like Nadler and Meng won't fall victim to this.

I am in complete agreement with you on every point. I never disliked Engel but he clearly became too apathetic and out-of-touch with his district.

Meanwhile Diaz losing is a massive relief. I am wondering if all the attention to him possibly winning here is what ended up making him lose. I don't blame anyone who was terrified by that prospect. Then again, the other issue is probably that the 15th district encompasses more people than Diaz's council or Senate districts, so more people clearly weren't as keen on electing him as in those state and local level districts.

Now, I am all for Democrats of different stripes representing their district appropriately when it comes to ideology, but he is not someone who should be representing any Democratic district, especially not the most Democratic favorable one in the nation. I felt the same about Lipinski losing to Newman. He was too right wing for his own district and his constituents recognized that.

I welcome Diaz to try again though in the future...running as a Republican and getting defeated way more significantly.

[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.

First, as noted by other coasters, this district is overwhelmingly democratic. I'm not sure what your point about it supposedly not being particularly Progressive is, but if you're implying that this possibly opens the door even a crack for Republicans to take the seat, that's simply farcical.

Of course I don't think the GOP could win here. My point is that this is prime Clinton '16/ Biden '20 territory. It isn't like OR-03 or NY-14 or CA-13 in it's political composition. A couple pages back, people were saying that this is one of the most progressive (as in DSA/left wing) districts in the country and it's natural it should be represented by someone on the left of the party but I'm just pointing out that this is a district typically dominated by moderate Dems. Which I suppose reflects especially poorly on Engel.

[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.

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.

First, as noted by other coasters, this district is overwhelmingly democratic. I'm not sure what your point about it supposedly not being particularly Progressive is, but if you're implying that this possibly opens the door even a crack for Republicans to take the seat, that's simply farcical.

Of course I don't think the GOP could win here. My point is that this is prime Clinton '16/ Biden '20 territory. It isn't like OR-03 or NY-14 or CA-13 in it's political composition. A couple pages back, people were saying that this is one of the most progressive (as in DSA/left wing) districts in the country and it's natural it should be represented by someone on the left of the party but I'm just pointing out that this is a district typically dominated by moderate Dems. Which I suppose reflects especially poorly on Engel.

Engel isn't wholly moderate (a long-time advocate of single payer) and I'd argue this is one of the few(er) distrust in which Sanders would be primed to do better in '20 than '16. In any case, Biden won a lot of voters over with an electability argument even as exit polls showed they preferred progressive policies and that line of attack does not hold water in a local race.

[Abolish ICE]

I hope all these new congresspersons are more like AOC and Pressley than Omar and Tlaib.

Mondaire Jones and especially Ritchie Torres seem pretty good (better than Pressley or AOC tbh).  Jones seems like a solid progressive who has managed to (from what I've read) thread the needle of harshly condemning the actions of Netanyahu, the illegal settlements, and calling for better living conditions in Palestinian areas without ever (AFAIK) crossing the line between being at least somewhat anti-Israel and being anti-Semitic.  

I mention this because it suggests that Jones is in general someone inclined to acknowledge the nuances in complex and hot-button issues rather than engage in simplistic, buzzword-based demagoguery.  We certainly need more of that in Congress and I'm sure there are other examples of him doing it with other issues, but for brevity's sake, I'll only add that I think he'll turn out to be a pretty effective legislator if that does indeed turn out to be the case.  He may turn out to have been an improvement over Lowey, but we'll see.  Don't wanna put the cart before the horse  

Ritchie Torres seems awesome, period.  The more I research him, the more I like him and I'd be delighted if he became the template going forward for progressive Berniecrats in safe districts.  I could see him becoming a Senator or a member of House leadership someday if he delivers on his potential.  I'd certainly vote for him and I can't wait to see where he goes from here.  Definitely a potential rising star though, that's for sure!

I don't know what Bowman will be like tbh.  On the one hand, I like to try to give folks the benefit of the doubt when I can as general rule even if I sometimes get a little rhetorically OTT here from time to time and Bowman has genuinely impressed me several times during the campaign re: his campaigning skills and seemed like he had a decent shot of winning even before Engel's gaffe (in hindsight, he probably would have won anyway).  

OTOH, he's explicitly and unambiguously allied himself with some really, really bad folks in the specific context of anti-Semitism (ex: a hate group run by a guy who has - IIRC - claimed white supremacy is an intrinsic and definitive feature of being Jewish and went out of his way to defend another anti-Semite who claimed that Jews control the weather) and seems like a bit of a rhetorical bomb-thrower (albeit, so far more AOC style bomb-throwing than Omar-style).  Then again, some of his anti-Semitic associations were in a context where one could argue either way as to whether he knew the full history of the folks he was praising, so I guess I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.  I do think he'll be either an AOC type or a Tlaib/Omar type, but it is hard to say which atm.  

Suraj Patel is a creepy sleeze who has - among other things - made FaceBook posts slobbering over and stating his desire to have sex with a 16 year-old and used fake profiles on dating apps to try to trick young people into meeting up with him ostensibly so he could make campaign pitches to them.  The guy just seems like a first-class sketchball and while I want Maloney primaried as much as anyone, I'm pretty sure Patel would be worse despite Maloney being a corporatist anti-vaxer (*barf*).  We can do so much better here than either of these two tbh.  My guess is that Maloney wins based on what's left to count and where it is from, but we'll see.  

To be fair to Bowman, if you read the IP section of his website it’s pretty nuanced and seems like he understands the need for peace/wants to be constructive. Sounds more like Pressley than any of the others when it comes to Israel.

I found a pretty detailed letter he wrote to a Jewish soon-to-be-constitutant who was seeking clarification about his views and I gotta admit, I was impressed by the tone, content, and general thoughtfulness.  Hopefully, it is reflective of how he’ll approach being a Congressman. 

Cool to hear! Willing to link/post it? (with constituent name redacted of course)

https://riverdalepress.com/stories/bowman-to-weiss-we-have-so-much-to-learn-from-each-other,72045

[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.

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.

First, as noted by other coasters, this district is overwhelmingly democratic. I'm not sure what your point about it supposedly not being particularly Progressive is, but if you're implying that this possibly opens the door even a crack for Republicans to take the seat, that's simply farcical.

Of course I don't think the GOP could win here. My point is that this is prime Clinton '16/ Biden '20 territory. It isn't like OR-03 or NY-14 or CA-13 in it's political composition. A couple pages back, people were saying that this is one of the most progressive (as in DSA/left wing) districts in the country and it's natural it should be represented by someone on the left of the party but I'm just pointing out that this is a district typically dominated by moderate Dems. Which I suppose reflects especially poorly on Engel.

Your argument that it is dominated by moderate Dems is lacking, to be frank. You've got the perfect combination of urban Bronx voters and limousine liberal Westchester voters. If this District doesn't support a progressive, Damn Few in the country do.

[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.

First, as noted by other coasters, this district is overwhelmingly democratic. I'm not sure what your point about it supposedly not being particularly Progressive is, but if you're implying that this possibly opens the door even a crack for Republicans to take the seat, that's simply farcical.

Of course I don't think the GOP could win here. My point is that this is prime Clinton '16/ Biden '20 territory. It isn't like OR-03 or NY-14 or CA-13 in it's political composition. A couple pages back, people were saying that this is one of the most progressive (as in DSA/left wing) districts in the country and it's natural it should be represented by someone on the left of the party but I'm just pointing out that this is a district typically dominated by moderate Dems. Which I suppose reflects especially poorly on Engel.

Your argument that it is dominated by moderate Dems is lacking, to be frank. You've got the perfect combination of urban Bronx voters and limousine liberal Westchester voters. If this District doesn't support a progressive, Damn Few in the country do.

Wait what? You literally described some of the more pro-establishment demographics in the party. Progressives have their support coming from millennial whites and Latinos, not Bronx AAs and boomer limo liberals. In the NY metro, that means places like Jersey City, Williamsburg, Park Slope, and Astoria; not places like Westchester or East Bronx or Bergen County or Jamaica.

[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.

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.

First, as noted by other coasters, this district is overwhelmingly democratic. I'm not sure what your point about it supposedly not being particularly Progressive is, but if you're implying that this possibly opens the door even a crack for Republicans to take the seat, that's simply farcical.

Of course I don't think the GOP could win here. My point is that this is prime Clinton '16/ Biden '20 territory. It isn't like OR-03 or NY-14 or CA-13 in it's political composition. A couple pages back, people were saying that this is one of the most progressive (as in DSA/left wing) districts in the country and it's natural it should be represented by someone on the left of the party but I'm just pointing out that this is a district typically dominated by moderate Dems. Which I suppose reflects especially poorly on Engel.

Your argument that it is dominated by moderate Dems is lacking, to be frank. You've got the perfect combination of urban Bronx voters and limousine liberal Westchester voters. If this District doesn't support a progressive, Damn Few in the country do.

Wait what? You literally described some of the more pro-establishment demographics in the party. Progressives have their support coming from millennial whites and Latinos, not Bronx AAs and boomer limo liberals. In the NY metro, that means places like Jersey City, Williamsburg, Park Slope, and Astoria; not places like Westchester or East Bronx or Bergen County or Jamaica.

Wait what? You literally distinguish between establishment types and progressives?

I think last night's election results should prove that you are completely incorrect, empirically speaking, but you do you.