I would argue that black voters aren't ideological moderates at all - the much hyped Third Way and Manhattan Institute polls have cross-tabs showing black voters' high support for all types of social democratic policies. The issue is one of affect, respect, and institutional engagement.
With all due respect, I disagree with your characterization of black voters. In your view, each voter is a stereotype determined by a couple of words describing his race, his age, his educational status.
I realized this was wrong when I participated in the 1980 NY Presidential primary. (I was a tireless worker for Ted Kennedy because I was still transfixed by the memory of BOBBY)
Some people said that blacks would definitely vote for Ted Kennedy because Ted was a Kennedy and the pull of the Kennedy name was irresistable. Some people said blacks would definitely vote for Carter because Carter was a born again protestant and knew how to talk "country."
In fact, the black vote went in different directions: Harlem went for Kennedy by two to one. By contrast, church going homeowners and renters in Hempstead and Roosevelt were solidly for Carter. But at the same time, there were plenty of Carter inroads in Harlem and scads of Kennedy insurrections in Hempstead.
We will all be better off when we see people as INDIVIDUALS WITH THEIR OWN MINDS AND IDENTITIES.
By the way, Please take a look at my rowdy,. rambunctious essay about the fight in NY's 12th District
For the last week, I've been trying to figure out why AOC didn't endorse Conrad Blackburn. It stands out like a sore thumb. Otherwise, she and Zohran had a perfect thing going: he endorsed all local candidates that weren't running against incumbents, so as not to antagonize Carl Heastie. But he endorsed all the DSA Congressional candidates (and Brad) including challengers because no one in Congress stands in the way of his passing his agenda in the same way. She did the complementary opposite: she only endorsed congressional candidates in open seats, so as not to antagonize her colleagues, but endorsed all the local challengers. Ruffled feathers at the local level mean nothing to her. Together they covered the entire slate - except for Conrad. And thinking in those terms, I couldn't make sense of it. Carl Heastie couldn't do anything to her.
But reading your piece I almost slapped my forehead Of course! She's thinking about running for President. She needs the black vote, the most institutional, power-brokered vote in the Dem party. And one of those brokers - let's call him Jim Clyburn just for fun, it could be anyone - has been friends with the black power brokers in Harlem for half a century. He knew Jordan Wright's grandfather, he knows his father. Hell, he could be Jordan's literal godfather for all I know. And he told AOC something to the effect of, You endorse in that race against the Wrights and I will definitely make sure nobody votes for you in the South Carolina primary. And if you don't, things could go your way.
Simply – – as Luthmann once again points out with deaf clairvoyance, America should pay close attention to what is happening in major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago because local political experiments often become national political debates. Supporters see these movements as efforts to address inequality, housing costs, and public services. Critics see something very different: a growing embrace of government-centered solutions that they believe weaken economic growth, public safety, and individual responsibility.
The larger concern for many voters is not a single election, but the long-term direction of urban governance. Policies involving housing, policing, taxation, energy, and election administration increasingly serve as testing grounds for ideas that may later be promoted nationally. Whether those policies succeed or fail will shape the political arguments heading into 2028.
For critics of democratic socialism and progressive governance, the warning is straightforward: political trends that emerge in major cities rarely stay confined there. If opponents believe these policies are harmful, their response must come through organizing, persuasion, voting, and public debate rather than complacency. The future direction of the country will ultimately be decided through democratic institutions and the voters who choose to participate in them.
The Democratic Party’s New York problem is no longer just a local faction fight. It is a national warning. Lange is right that the June 23 primaries are a dress rehearsal for 2028 because New York strips the Democratic coalition into its component parts: young renters in the Commie Corridor, Jewish voters wrestling with AIPAC and Israel, Manhattan elites fighting over AI, and Harlem’s older Black voters deciding whether the Left can finally penetrate the party’s old firewall. The question is not merely who wins a House primary. The question is who owns the Democratic Party after Mamdani.
That is where the problem becomes brutal. Cuomo could win New York and still make sense nationally because Cuomo-style Democrats were recognizable to voters outside the city: transactional, tough-ish, machine-driven, culturally liberal but not openly revolutionary. Mamdani’s coalition is different. DSA politics can win young, renter-heavy, hyper-online, college-educated urban districts, but the same platform that plays in Astoria or Bushwick can look radioactive in Staten Island, South Brooklyn, Nassau, Suffolk, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and the rest of America.
The Pritzker observation is solid. Swearing off AIPAC money, moving left on Israel, and speaking the new activist dialect may look like smart positioning in a Democratic presidential primary. But to many voters, it looks like cowardice. It looks like major Democrats watching the anti-Israel street gain power and deciding to bend before they are broken. That may help inside the activist primary ecosystem, but it creates a general-election liability the size of the Hudson.
The DSA’s real genius is that it eats old machines and turns their bones into infrastructure. Crowley fell. Mamdani rose. Now Goldman, Espaillat, and the old New York establishment face the same fire. If the DSA can ravage Espaillat’s machine, pressure Jewish Manhattan candidates, and split progressives from socialists in NY-7, then the regular Democratic order is not merely being challenged. It is being digested.
New York City may be previewing the Democratic future. The problem for Democrats is that the future they are building in New York may be too radical for the country that still decides presidential elections.
The American people are increasingly anti-war, a constituency that notably broke for Trump in 2024 - and the convergence of disastrous foreign policy and increasing prices from food to utilities would suggest any smart pol should get ahead of that topic well before 2028. We see Vance already dipping his toe into it, and it would be embarrassing to get flanked (again) by the right on a lopsided issue; same with data centers.
Nadler’s district only recently came to include the UES and UWS - after the most recent redistricting. Therefore it might be premature to say the UWS always wins
You fail to mention Bloomberg’s 5M “independent expenditure” to Lasher…
Non mayoral year June primaries have meager turnouts, will Mamdani’s foot soldiers knock on doors or will planning for July 4th celebrations dominate local interest?
With absence of NY Times endorsements maybe union endorsements will matter. In low voter turnout races name recognition is the best endorsement…
Fantastic! You've got me more tuned in to NYC politics than ever. I'll be watching you on election night!
I would argue that black voters aren't ideological moderates at all - the much hyped Third Way and Manhattan Institute polls have cross-tabs showing black voters' high support for all types of social democratic policies. The issue is one of affect, respect, and institutional engagement.
With all due respect, I disagree with your characterization of black voters. In your view, each voter is a stereotype determined by a couple of words describing his race, his age, his educational status.
I realized this was wrong when I participated in the 1980 NY Presidential primary. (I was a tireless worker for Ted Kennedy because I was still transfixed by the memory of BOBBY)
Some people said that blacks would definitely vote for Ted Kennedy because Ted was a Kennedy and the pull of the Kennedy name was irresistable. Some people said blacks would definitely vote for Carter because Carter was a born again protestant and knew how to talk "country."
In fact, the black vote went in different directions: Harlem went for Kennedy by two to one. By contrast, church going homeowners and renters in Hempstead and Roosevelt were solidly for Carter. But at the same time, there were plenty of Carter inroads in Harlem and scads of Kennedy insurrections in Hempstead.
We will all be better off when we see people as INDIVIDUALS WITH THEIR OWN MINDS AND IDENTITIES.
By the way, Please take a look at my rowdy,. rambunctious essay about the fight in NY's 12th District
https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/gerald-nadler-the-nettlesome-nattering
For the last week, I've been trying to figure out why AOC didn't endorse Conrad Blackburn. It stands out like a sore thumb. Otherwise, she and Zohran had a perfect thing going: he endorsed all local candidates that weren't running against incumbents, so as not to antagonize Carl Heastie. But he endorsed all the DSA Congressional candidates (and Brad) including challengers because no one in Congress stands in the way of his passing his agenda in the same way. She did the complementary opposite: she only endorsed congressional candidates in open seats, so as not to antagonize her colleagues, but endorsed all the local challengers. Ruffled feathers at the local level mean nothing to her. Together they covered the entire slate - except for Conrad. And thinking in those terms, I couldn't make sense of it. Carl Heastie couldn't do anything to her.
But reading your piece I almost slapped my forehead Of course! She's thinking about running for President. She needs the black vote, the most institutional, power-brokered vote in the Dem party. And one of those brokers - let's call him Jim Clyburn just for fun, it could be anyone - has been friends with the black power brokers in Harlem for half a century. He knew Jordan Wright's grandfather, he knows his father. Hell, he could be Jordan's literal godfather for all I know. And he told AOC something to the effect of, You endorse in that race against the Wrights and I will definitely make sure nobody votes for you in the South Carolina primary. And if you don't, things could go your way.
Since when is Lander a Zionist?
Since forever haha
(bummer) news to me!
wow, fully justified text looks surprisingly bad on Substack’s iOS app
Simply – – as Luthmann once again points out with deaf clairvoyance, America should pay close attention to what is happening in major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago because local political experiments often become national political debates. Supporters see these movements as efforts to address inequality, housing costs, and public services. Critics see something very different: a growing embrace of government-centered solutions that they believe weaken economic growth, public safety, and individual responsibility.
The larger concern for many voters is not a single election, but the long-term direction of urban governance. Policies involving housing, policing, taxation, energy, and election administration increasingly serve as testing grounds for ideas that may later be promoted nationally. Whether those policies succeed or fail will shape the political arguments heading into 2028.
For critics of democratic socialism and progressive governance, the warning is straightforward: political trends that emerge in major cities rarely stay confined there. If opponents believe these policies are harmful, their response must come through organizing, persuasion, voting, and public debate rather than complacency. The future direction of the country will ultimately be decided through democratic institutions and the voters who choose to participate in them.
The Democratic Party’s New York problem is no longer just a local faction fight. It is a national warning. Lange is right that the June 23 primaries are a dress rehearsal for 2028 because New York strips the Democratic coalition into its component parts: young renters in the Commie Corridor, Jewish voters wrestling with AIPAC and Israel, Manhattan elites fighting over AI, and Harlem’s older Black voters deciding whether the Left can finally penetrate the party’s old firewall. The question is not merely who wins a House primary. The question is who owns the Democratic Party after Mamdani.
That is where the problem becomes brutal. Cuomo could win New York and still make sense nationally because Cuomo-style Democrats were recognizable to voters outside the city: transactional, tough-ish, machine-driven, culturally liberal but not openly revolutionary. Mamdani’s coalition is different. DSA politics can win young, renter-heavy, hyper-online, college-educated urban districts, but the same platform that plays in Astoria or Bushwick can look radioactive in Staten Island, South Brooklyn, Nassau, Suffolk, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and the rest of America.
The Pritzker observation is solid. Swearing off AIPAC money, moving left on Israel, and speaking the new activist dialect may look like smart positioning in a Democratic presidential primary. But to many voters, it looks like cowardice. It looks like major Democrats watching the anti-Israel street gain power and deciding to bend before they are broken. That may help inside the activist primary ecosystem, but it creates a general-election liability the size of the Hudson.
The DSA’s real genius is that it eats old machines and turns their bones into infrastructure. Crowley fell. Mamdani rose. Now Goldman, Espaillat, and the old New York establishment face the same fire. If the DSA can ravage Espaillat’s machine, pressure Jewish Manhattan candidates, and split progressives from socialists in NY-7, then the regular Democratic order is not merely being challenged. It is being digested.
New York City may be previewing the Democratic future. The problem for Democrats is that the future they are building in New York may be too radical for the country that still decides presidential elections.
The American people are increasingly anti-war, a constituency that notably broke for Trump in 2024 - and the convergence of disastrous foreign policy and increasing prices from food to utilities would suggest any smart pol should get ahead of that topic well before 2028. We see Vance already dipping his toe into it, and it would be embarrassing to get flanked (again) by the right on a lopsided issue; same with data centers.
Meh. The outcome in the 7th will be determined by how loudly Mamdani can amplify DSA branding and misrepresentation (and anti-Blackness).
Nadler’s district only recently came to include the UES and UWS - after the most recent redistricting. Therefore it might be premature to say the UWS always wins
You fail to mention Bloomberg’s 5M “independent expenditure” to Lasher…
Non mayoral year June primaries have meager turnouts, will Mamdani’s foot soldiers knock on doors or will planning for July 4th celebrations dominate local interest?
With absence of NY Times endorsements maybe union endorsements will matter. In low voter turnout races name recognition is the best endorsement…