Something I noticed about the comparison between Mamdani and Talarico was that they both stayed almost uniformly positive in their campaign, focusing entirely on their own plans and policy and almost never negatively campaigning against their opponent unless something occurred that allowed them to do so while being seen as the attacked (Explicit racist attacks by Cuomo, Allred accusing Talarico of racist remarks).
Something that is generally true but often forgotten about Democratic primaries by us hyper-online factional types is that the primary electorate is not particularly factional itself. Outside of extreme cases ala Fetterman when he next comes up for election, they will generally enter the election booth liking all candidates on the ballot, and negative campaigning against another member of the party might bring down your opponent's favorables, but it is likely to damage you just as much, especially if you lack a smoking gun
Coming from deep in ATX, this is the only breakdown that I think accurately lays out what happened here! I’ve been going crazy watching people call Crockett a progressive and Talarico moderate when their policy positions are nearly identical, and Talarico has been building a coalition similar to very left democratic socialists (like Zohran), purely through some very good populist messaging. Not sure if it will be enough to pull out a win in November but being a dem in TX is all about getting your hopes up against all better judgement. Thanks for this!
As usual, thoughtful 🤔 Sending to my Houston bros, professional whites and evangelical black voters, 2028 is a long way off, first we have to survive this November with the Insurrection Act threat inching towards reality
Democrats keep trying to sell this as some grand “top versus bottom” realignment, but the reality is simpler: their party is splitting in half. On one side, you have the old machine—career politicians, unions, and institutional insiders. On the other you’ve got the activist left fueled by TikTok populism and socialist slogans. They agree on one thing: Donald Trump broke their coalition. Working-class voters, especially outside the urban bubble, are walking away from the Democrat brand entirely. So now they’re fighting each other for the scraps. Call it realignment if you want. From the outside, it looks like something else—a political civil war inside the Democrat Party.
That's been going on since 2015, which got written up at the time as younger Democrats pining for a more "progressive" direction but which was very obviously just a revolt against the institutional Democratic Party with Bernie Sanders as merely the guy benefiting from it. When people like Matt Yglesias, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Jared Golden were supporting the Sanders campaign... I don't think it was really about a desire for socialism, nor do I think it was about the working class.
What's changed is that Trump has pushed a lot of traditional Reagan/Bush-era Republican voters into the Democratic Party and "middle-aged suburban homeowner in west Austin, Texas" definitely reads as someone who voted for George W. Bush twice. Those voters, though, are naturally inclined to dislike the existing Democratic Party machine, just as 25-year-olds in 2016 who grew up in Republican households were inclined to dislike Hillary Clinton.
The main question to resolve is whether the institutionalists being pushed out in favor of the new blood have any particular reason to remain in the Democratic coalition if it no longer works for them and in fact is explicitly campaigning against them and winning, and I don't know the answer to that question. The populist left, effectively, has always operated under the assumption that they would simply inherit these votes if they win primaries (but their votes, of course, must be "earned" in the general election.)
There is an emerging crisis of legitimacy within the Democratic party establishment, and even more so within the black Democratic establishment, in which the heirs to the social democratic aligned rainbow coalition - the Mamdanis and Talaricos - aren't produced from the black political tradition. And in the case they are - your Donna Edwards or India Waltons, for example - they are often dismissed by the black Democratic establishment, further decoupling the social democratic politics from the black political tradition.
No offense, Michael, but I feel like you're using a lot of words to describe the recent influx of renters in Mamdani/Talarico's coalition when just one would do: "gentrifiers." (Eric Adams was a one-term mayor for many reasons, but even if he *wasn't* a walking Thomas Nast drawing, he'd struggle to get re-elected because his power base got priced out of the city.)
Will the Mamdani/Talarico strategy play in Peoria? Maybe: depends whether all the progressive-minded Peorians have moved to NYC/Austin!
A fine example of what I call "Nate-erring" after a certain NYT-affiliated pundit.
1] Define what you think consists of "substance," while carefully avoiding asking the polled populations what their needs and fears are.
2] Decide then that there are no "substantive" differences between the two candidates. The pollster's equivalent of "I don't see color."
3] Happily announce that candidates cannot win according to the substance whose existence you've just denied. They can only win according to style.
Incidentally: anyone who thinks Talarico has rizz had better watch his interventions in the State Legislature. It's not that I'm disappointed that Crockett lost, it's that she was set up to lose in favor of Talarico. That man is going to be the Walter Mondale of Texas, 2026.
This doesn't seem like a great read on the race to me. If you look at their actual policy platforms, Talarico and Crockett were nearly identical on every issue. But Crockett's supporters on twitter relentlessly attacked anyone who didn't like her as racist, while Talarico was unendingly positive and conciliatory. Since that's the most obvious difference between them, Occam's Razor suggests that's what mattered, right? Yet all actual polling suggests that voters who weren't terminally online viewed this race as "holy shit, TWO cakes!", so who even really knows.
Well, yes. They differed pretty much solely in rhetorical style - they are both vaguely progressive populists with no particular strongly held views on literally any topic.
1] As I've already said, I'm not looking at what their platforms say, I'm looking at what they don't say. Or, more to the point, what Michael and you will pointedly look away from.
2] People who aren't "terminally online" would have to be one of the smallest voting blocks in America, somewhere behind "White Christian Evangelists against Hypocrisy" or "Trump supporters with an IQ above 80."
3] You kinda gave yourself away, there. Getting a little bit jaded with the "I'm-not-a-racist-It's-just-that-I'm-not-gonna-vote-for-the-Black-candidate-because-they-called-me-a-racist" line. A self-fulfilling prophecy, no?
Something I noticed about the comparison between Mamdani and Talarico was that they both stayed almost uniformly positive in their campaign, focusing entirely on their own plans and policy and almost never negatively campaigning against their opponent unless something occurred that allowed them to do so while being seen as the attacked (Explicit racist attacks by Cuomo, Allred accusing Talarico of racist remarks).
Something that is generally true but often forgotten about Democratic primaries by us hyper-online factional types is that the primary electorate is not particularly factional itself. Outside of extreme cases ala Fetterman when he next comes up for election, they will generally enter the election booth liking all candidates on the ballot, and negative campaigning against another member of the party might bring down your opponent's favorables, but it is likely to damage you just as much, especially if you lack a smoking gun
Coming from deep in ATX, this is the only breakdown that I think accurately lays out what happened here! I’ve been going crazy watching people call Crockett a progressive and Talarico moderate when their policy positions are nearly identical, and Talarico has been building a coalition similar to very left democratic socialists (like Zohran), purely through some very good populist messaging. Not sure if it will be enough to pull out a win in November but being a dem in TX is all about getting your hopes up against all better judgement. Thanks for this!
As usual, thoughtful 🤔 Sending to my Houston bros, professional whites and evangelical black voters, 2028 is a long way off, first we have to survive this November with the Insurrection Act threat inching towards reality
Democrats keep trying to sell this as some grand “top versus bottom” realignment, but the reality is simpler: their party is splitting in half. On one side, you have the old machine—career politicians, unions, and institutional insiders. On the other you’ve got the activist left fueled by TikTok populism and socialist slogans. They agree on one thing: Donald Trump broke their coalition. Working-class voters, especially outside the urban bubble, are walking away from the Democrat brand entirely. So now they’re fighting each other for the scraps. Call it realignment if you want. From the outside, it looks like something else—a political civil war inside the Democrat Party.
That's been going on since 2015, which got written up at the time as younger Democrats pining for a more "progressive" direction but which was very obviously just a revolt against the institutional Democratic Party with Bernie Sanders as merely the guy benefiting from it. When people like Matt Yglesias, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Jared Golden were supporting the Sanders campaign... I don't think it was really about a desire for socialism, nor do I think it was about the working class.
What's changed is that Trump has pushed a lot of traditional Reagan/Bush-era Republican voters into the Democratic Party and "middle-aged suburban homeowner in west Austin, Texas" definitely reads as someone who voted for George W. Bush twice. Those voters, though, are naturally inclined to dislike the existing Democratic Party machine, just as 25-year-olds in 2016 who grew up in Republican households were inclined to dislike Hillary Clinton.
The main question to resolve is whether the institutionalists being pushed out in favor of the new blood have any particular reason to remain in the Democratic coalition if it no longer works for them and in fact is explicitly campaigning against them and winning, and I don't know the answer to that question. The populist left, effectively, has always operated under the assumption that they would simply inherit these votes if they win primaries (but their votes, of course, must be "earned" in the general election.)
There is an emerging crisis of legitimacy within the Democratic party establishment, and even more so within the black Democratic establishment, in which the heirs to the social democratic aligned rainbow coalition - the Mamdanis and Talaricos - aren't produced from the black political tradition. And in the case they are - your Donna Edwards or India Waltons, for example - they are often dismissed by the black Democratic establishment, further decoupling the social democratic politics from the black political tradition.
One took money from Soros, the other from Adelman.
Anyone associated with either part of the corrupt duopoly is just another false savior.
Until people get that straight the kabuki theatre will just keep going and the country will keep sinking towards oblivion.
Feels like Gavin Newsome is the Cuomo of the upcoming presidential primary.
So is Mamdani a top or a bottom?
No offense, Michael, but I feel like you're using a lot of words to describe the recent influx of renters in Mamdani/Talarico's coalition when just one would do: "gentrifiers." (Eric Adams was a one-term mayor for many reasons, but even if he *wasn't* a walking Thomas Nast drawing, he'd struggle to get re-elected because his power base got priced out of the city.)
Will the Mamdani/Talarico strategy play in Peoria? Maybe: depends whether all the progressive-minded Peorians have moved to NYC/Austin!
A fine example of what I call "Nate-erring" after a certain NYT-affiliated pundit.
1] Define what you think consists of "substance," while carefully avoiding asking the polled populations what their needs and fears are.
2] Decide then that there are no "substantive" differences between the two candidates. The pollster's equivalent of "I don't see color."
3] Happily announce that candidates cannot win according to the substance whose existence you've just denied. They can only win according to style.
Incidentally: anyone who thinks Talarico has rizz had better watch his interventions in the State Legislature. It's not that I'm disappointed that Crockett lost, it's that she was set up to lose in favor of Talarico. That man is going to be the Walter Mondale of Texas, 2026.
This doesn't seem like a great read on the race to me. If you look at their actual policy platforms, Talarico and Crockett were nearly identical on every issue. But Crockett's supporters on twitter relentlessly attacked anyone who didn't like her as racist, while Talarico was unendingly positive and conciliatory. Since that's the most obvious difference between them, Occam's Razor suggests that's what mattered, right? Yet all actual polling suggests that voters who weren't terminally online viewed this race as "holy shit, TWO cakes!", so who even really knows.
THAT'S the most obvious difference between them?
Well, yes. They differed pretty much solely in rhetorical style - they are both vaguely progressive populists with no particular strongly held views on literally any topic.
1] As I've already said, I'm not looking at what their platforms say, I'm looking at what they don't say. Or, more to the point, what Michael and you will pointedly look away from.
2] People who aren't "terminally online" would have to be one of the smallest voting blocks in America, somewhere behind "White Christian Evangelists against Hypocrisy" or "Trump supporters with an IQ above 80."
3] You kinda gave yourself away, there. Getting a little bit jaded with the "I'm-not-a-racist-It's-just-that-I'm-not-gonna-vote-for-the-Black-candidate-because-they-called-me-a-racist" line. A self-fulfilling prophecy, no?