New York’s Mayor Zohran Mamdani scored a smashing triumph in this Tuesday’s primary elections, with all three of his endorsed candidates winning—in two cases against incumbents, in two cases against candidates with much more impressive political resumes and establishment Democratic support.
I can't really see any bright side of Chevalier's win. I think Jeff Maurer put it well: "On votes in the House that actually matter, it’s virtually certain that these three will vote the same way that the left-leaning Democrats they replaced would have voted.
But now for the bad news: These three — especially Chevalier — are a glorious gift to Republican flaks. What Michael Jordan was to Nike, Chevalier is to anyone whose job is to portray Democrats as radical, anti-America lunatics. And that is because she is a radical, anti-America lunatic; I hope normie Democrats loudly denounce her bullshit instead of trying to sanewash it. "
Or Noah Smith, in a post entitled "The Democrats Have Their Own MAGA now":
"Avila Chevalier is as much of an extremist as anyone associated with the MAGA movement. The best comparator on the right would probably be Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has made a long string of similarly extreme and wacky statements. My typical line is that “both extremes are bad, but the Republican extreme is worse”. Avila Chevalier is severely testing that asymmetry."
By my lights, the main difference between Chevalier and Espaillat is not in congressional policy on Israel or anything else, where a Democratic congressperson from New York was never going to be the tipping point. Rather, it will be in what they mean for the Democratic party's national brand. And for that, Chevalier is pure poison.
I was focusing rather narrowly on the impact of Mamdani's endorsements on his political effectiveness in City Hall, but I agree that Avila Chevalier is bad for the Democratic brand and therefore was a bad choice to oppose Espaillat. I wish Mamdani had found someone else.
I standby, in respectful silence, praying that someone can say what the “Democratic party’s national brand” actually is. If people understood it better, they might become more interested in defending it. Meanwhile, DSA,/ Warren and a few others appear …so far …to be in better harmony with the requirements of democracy.
Whereas I type respectfully. It seems to me that they are all within the range of liberalism. Since we only have two parties that can win elections, it makes sense for them to each be a broad umbrella. Yes. People need to think and vote in the primaries. That's a good part of what it's all about.
I can't really see any bright side of Chevalier's win. I think Jeff Maurer put it well: "On votes in the House that actually matter, it’s virtually certain that these three will vote the same way that the left-leaning Democrats they replaced would have voted.
But now for the bad news: These three — especially Chevalier — are a glorious gift to Republican flaks. What Michael Jordan was to Nike, Chevalier is to anyone whose job is to portray Democrats as radical, anti-America lunatics. And that is because she is a radical, anti-America lunatic; I hope normie Democrats loudly denounce her bullshit instead of trying to sanewash it. "
https://substack.com/@imightbewrong/p-203410145
Or Noah Smith, in a post entitled "The Democrats Have Their Own MAGA now":
"Avila Chevalier is as much of an extremist as anyone associated with the MAGA movement. The best comparator on the right would probably be Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has made a long string of similarly extreme and wacky statements. My typical line is that “both extremes are bad, but the Republican extreme is worse”. Avila Chevalier is severely testing that asymmetry."
https://substack.com/home/post/p-203606878
By my lights, the main difference between Chevalier and Espaillat is not in congressional policy on Israel or anything else, where a Democratic congressperson from New York was never going to be the tipping point. Rather, it will be in what they mean for the Democratic party's national brand. And for that, Chevalier is pure poison.
I was focusing rather narrowly on the impact of Mamdani's endorsements on his political effectiveness in City Hall, but I agree that Avila Chevalier is bad for the Democratic brand and therefore was a bad choice to oppose Espaillat. I wish Mamdani had found someone else.
I standby, in respectful silence, praying that someone can say what the “Democratic party’s national brand” actually is. If people understood it better, they might become more interested in defending it. Meanwhile, DSA,/ Warren and a few others appear …so far …to be in better harmony with the requirements of democracy.
Whereas I type respectfully. It seems to me that they are all within the range of liberalism. Since we only have two parties that can win elections, it makes sense for them to each be a broad umbrella. Yes. People need to think and vote in the primaries. That's a good part of what it's all about.