New York 6/23 Primary Results Megathread

[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.

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.

I assumed that was the crude dichotomy we were using. Progressive is typically used to group left-wing insurgents and their supporters in opposition to more entrenched Democrats.

[OneJ]

I think it's a mistake to conflate primary voters in such manners (moderate/progressive, establishment/anti-establishment, etc.). The Bowman/Engel primary, the Capuano/Pressley primary, and even the Lipinski/Newman primaries are evidence for this.

Now, of course, some voters will be more consistent in their voting habits but remember that primary elections are very fluid and, therefore, a lot of people won't vote on the basis of who's ideologically closest to them. They may vote for other factors and a common one being identity.

For example, you can clearly see a pattern between Sanders '16 voters and Lipinski '18 voters.

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/976614074384609281

[OneJ]

Also, I was surprised to see NY-09 not being competitive at all. I really wonder why Bunkeddeko couldn't consolidate support around him this time (I know last time wasn't a split field but still).

[Intell]

https://twitter.com/ryanmatsumoto1/status/1275644945781739520

[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.

I assumed that was the crude dichotomy we were using. Progressive is typically used to group left-wing insurgents and their supporters in opposition to more entrenched Democrats.

Fair enough. I just don't think that dichotomy is accurate. Just because someone is deeply involved in their local Democratic party organization doesn't mean they're less likely be Progressive. Quite the opposite actually.

[Badger]

I think it's a mistake to conflate primary voters in such manners (moderate/progressive, establishment/anti-establishment, etc.). The Bowman/Engel primary, the Capuano/Pressley primary, and even the Lipinski/Newman primaries are evidence for this.

Now, of course, some voters will be more consistent in their voting habits but remember that primary elections are very fluid and, therefore, a lot of people won't vote on the basis of who's ideologically closest to them. They may vote for other factors and a common one being identity.

For example, you can clearly see a pattern between Sanders '16 voters and Lipinski '18 voters.

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/976614074384609281

Wow. That map is literally quite mind-blowing. Maybe a propensity for Women Voters to support both Clinton and Newman more than men?

[Oryxslayer]

I think it's a mistake to conflate primary voters in such manners (moderate/progressive, establishment/anti-establishment, etc.). The Bowman/Engel primary, the Capuano/Pressley primary, and even the Lipinski/Newman primaries are evidence for this.

Now, of course, some voters will be more consistent in their voting habits but remember that primary elections are very fluid and, therefore, a lot of people won't vote on the basis of who's ideologically closest to them. They may vote for other factors and a common one being identity.

For example, you can clearly see a pattern between Sanders '16 voters and Lipinski '18 voters.

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/976614074384609281

Wow. That map is literally quite mind-blowing. Maybe a propensity for Women Voters to support both Clinton and Newman more than men?

The 2020 map has even more crossover going on if you can fish that out from months old twitter, since Lipinski only won the machine wards.

[Suburbia]

In NY-02, GOP establishment candidate Andrew Garbarino is leading.

It looks like LiPetri's law and order swag didn't pull off with GOP voters

https://patch.com/new-york/lindenhurst/ny-2nd-congressional-district-primary-live-results

[coloradocowboi]

Can someone who understands better than me explain whether or not Suraj Patel can realistically take down Maloney?

As a progressive, I would happily taking down Yvette Clarke for taking down Crazy Carolyn.

[DINGO Joe]

Can someone who understands better than me explain whether or not Suraj Patel can realistically take down Maloney?

As a progressive, I would happily taking down Yvette Clarke for taking down Crazy Carolyn.

Seems very unlikely, as early vote has tended to be more establishment than ED vote in states thus far.

[Oryxslayer]

Can someone who understands better than me explain whether or not Suraj Patel can realistically take down Maloney?

As a progressive, I would happily taking down Yvette Clarke for taking down Crazy Carolyn.

Seems very unlikely, as early vote has tended to be more establishment than ED vote in states thus far.

And even if the EV 100% matched E-Day (which it won't) the Early vote numbers from Maloney's base in Manhattan dwarfs the early vote in the eastern site of the district.

[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.

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.

So hostile! I'm not saying anything about who they elected. All I was saying is that this is not a district that would reasonably be considered near the top of the list of "progressive" districts likely to elect a preferred "progressive" candidate in a primary. The fact that it did anyway should be seen as a positive for progressives, I think?

I mean, Mondaire Jones's new district-to-be is probably even further down the list of districts likely to elect a preferred progressive candidate (unless you're going to argue that northern Westchester County is a progressive bastion!), but it went with one, too. Obviously, demographics are not always destiny in primaries, and there are other factors at play.

[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.

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.

So hostile! I'm not saying anything about who they elected. All I was saying is that this is not a district that would reasonably be considered near the top of the list of "progressive" districts likely to elect a preferred "progressive" candidate in a primary. The fact that it did anyway should be seen as a positive for progressives, I think?

I mean, Mondaire Jones's new district-to-be is probably even further down the list of districts likely to elect a preferred progressive candidate (unless you're going to argue that northern Westchester County is a progressive bastion!), but it went with one, too. Obviously, demographics are not always destiny in primaries, and there are other factors at play.

Isn't it more likely that your assumptions about what makes it likely for a district to elect a "progressive" are incorrect?

[Intell]

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.

So hostile! I'm not saying anything about who they elected. All I was saying is that this is not a district that would reasonably be considered near the top of the list of "progressive" districts likely to elect a preferred "progressive" candidate in a primary. The fact that it did anyway should be seen as a positive for progressives, I think?

I mean, Mondaire Jones's new district-to-be is probably even further down the list of districts likely to elect a preferred progressive candidate (unless you're going to argue that northern Westchester County is a progressive bastion!), but it went with one, too. Obviously, demographics are not always destiny in primaries, and there are other factors at play.

Isn't it more likely that your assumptions about what makes it likely for a district to elect a "progressive" are incorrect?

Wealthy/middle class  surburbs and black voters whom are strongest for the establishment are are a progressive bastion now?

[EastAnglianLefty]

It seems fairly likely that there's a specific NYC factor. There's also a possibility that we shouldn't be considering long-established African-American communities in the rural south or urban Midwest as the same group as Caribbean-American voters in NYC whose families arrived much more recently. Finally, we should not that unlike a lot of other congressional primaries, the incumbent in NY-16 was white and the challenger was black.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/cinyc9/status/1276636002828910592?s=20

Last I saw (Wednesday) Westchester had 50K between all the districts.

[Andrew Cuomo is a No Go]

I've got to say, Claudia Tenney had a poor showing in the 22nd. George Phillips got 31% of the vote with no money against a candidate with a Presidential endorsement, and the man is a perennial loser whose only notable policy is putting the US back on the gold standard.

[n1240]

https://twitter.com/cinyc9/status/1276636002828910592?s=20

Last I saw (Wednesday) Westchester had 50K between all the districts.

41277 requests within district

99k requests and 58k returned as of Monday, could get around 30k or so out of NY-16 portion of Westchester still?

The absentee return rates in NYC seem obscurely low, could just be number of ballots processed, but still that would be a very slow process rate.

[Canis]

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.

Ugh No Sherman Is my congressman and is a mega HP I really hope he doesn't get foreign affairs hes a gigantic shill for aipac I voted for his primary challenger this year but because of the top two system I'll be forced to vote for him over the batsh!t insane republican running against him

[Oryxslayer]

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.

Ugh No Sherman Is my congressman and is a mega HP I really hope he doesn't get foreign affairs hes a gigantic shill for aipac I voted for his primary challenger this year but because of the top two system I'll be forced to vote for him over the batsh!t insane republican running against him

One of the great Ironies of the top two system is while it facilitates inter-party battles in uber-safe seats like the Bay, inner LA, Seattle, and the GOP hinterlands, it protects incumbents in seats that are Safe or worse since the opposition is almost always going to get the other slot, even if they stand no chance. You have to really screw up to lose a slot in the top two, since that is what often needed to successfully primary a incumbent under top-two in those seats.

[Canis]

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.

Ugh No Sherman Is my congressman and is a mega HP I really hope he doesn't get foreign affairs hes a gigantic shill for aipac I voted for his primary challenger this year but because of the top two system I'll be forced to vote for him over the batsh!t insane republican running against him

One of the great Ironies of the top two system is while it facilitates inter-party battles in uber-safe seats like the Bay, inner LA, Seattle, and the GOP hinterlands, it protects incumbents incumbents in seats that are Safe or worse since the opposition is almost always going to get the other slot, even if they stand no chance. You have to really screw up to lose a slot in the top two, since that is what often needed to successfully primary a incumbent under top-two in those seats.

True the only way I see sherman going down is if in 2022 his district is merged or redrawn and he has to face Lieu or Brownley who Id happily vote for over sherman CA-30 is a type of district with a lot of democrats and just enough republicans to make it through to the runoff and then end up losing by like 40 points every year even when the incumbent is challenged from the left if their were more rs running in the district we could get a dvd race but I really doubt theirs any rs out their delusional enough to think theyd have a shot at winning besides Mark Reed 

[Anna Komnene]

NYC updated their mail ballot return rates today: https://www.vote.nyc/page/absentee-ballot-totals. The number of returned mail ballots is more than the total E-Day vote in some districts now and likely to increase even more. There will be another update on Thursday. Who knows when they actually start counting.

NY-12
Manhattan 31,344/79,134
Queens 8,374/16,869
Brooklyn 3,903/13,641

NY-15
Bronx 15,476/47,046

NY-16
Bronx 10,710/24,905

[LimoLiberal]

When will mail-ins start being counted?

[Oryxslayer]

When will mail-ins start being counted?

For some reason, July 6th, because of a stupid state law that needs to be changed. But, it should be quick, since the election counters now can work with the ballots before that date, rather than just hold them which was the June 30th final accepted Mail Ballot date. Anything after today is not accepted.

[Pyro]

So, in the aftermath of the KY Sen race and it's giant discrepancy between mail-ins and in-person voting, what chance is there that some of the perceived winners don't actually win? Are Jones, Torres and Bowman still likely to hold on?