And winning the Democratic primaries in these House districts leads to virtually certain victories in November.

That’s the beauty of a deep blue district. Win the primary and you’re in. And what you might imagine of Mamdani’s picks is true: they are fellow “progressive” leftist Democratic Socialists, and are supported by the same voters that liked Mamdani. That group is highly motivated and fed up with incumbents for the most part – a phenomenon similar to the one that propelled AOC into her seat in the beginning of her career:

When campaigning Tuesday, Mamdani said it was not a question of electing more Democrats, it was a question of electing “better Democrats.”

CBS News New York political reporter Marcia Kramer says that in effect, he was tapping into recent a poll finding that New York voters were fed up with politics as usual and were ready to clean house.

The winners will be going to the US House. Then again, even if more moderate Democrats had won the primaries (although “moderate” is a relative word these days), they probably would be voting exactly the same as these far leftists. However, this seems to be the direction of the Democratic Party in safe blue enclaves: to nominate the most radical candidate possible.

In the 13th District, nominee Chevalier “won’t say murderers should go to prison, won’t support deporting illegal immigrant convicted rapists, and won’t condemn Hamas or 10/7.” What’s more, it seems to have been white voters who supported her and black and Hispanic voters who supported her opponent:

Espaillat led w/ older, lower income, Black, & Hispanic voters. “Socialist” Chevalier led w/ younger, college-educ., higher income, i.e. gentrifiers.

In the 10th District, the main difference between the winner and the 2nd-place loser was that the latter was the incumbent, Dan Goldman. Oh, and the winner is anti-Israel:

Lander’s knock-out of two-term Rep. Goldman delivers one of the night’s biggest intraparty upsets. Lander, who enjoyed the backing of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), defeated Goldman in a race that became a proxy battle between the party’s progressive wing and its more establishment faction.

Both candidates are Jewish, so that was not the issue. But Lander said he wanted to join “that fight to end occupation, and apartheid and genocide.”

This is definitely the wave of the future for Democrats. Although they will run less obviously leftist candidates in more purple areas, if such candidates win they will vote with the others.

And what is the plan of the Democratic Socialists? They’ve got one, and it’s nothing less than revolutionary. The left might not be able to win a presidency, but they would like to fix it so that they don’t need to:

Earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America’s top leadership met for an in-person meeting of their National Political Committee (NPC), the DSA’s governing authority. The result of the meeting was “Workers Deserve More!”, a rebooted platform for the organization featuring a host of radical proposals. The document commits DSA to scrapping the U.S. Senate, “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” defunding the Department of War, amnesty for all immigrants, and “replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”

As more and more members seek election to local and national positions, the platform represents a clear statement of the DSA’s views. Its radicalism, therefore, gives a glimpse into how the equivalent of the DSA’s board of directors—some of whom have appeared to moderate—actually think about politics.

It’s “our democracy” all right; the sort of thing the Founding Fathers worked so hard to avoid. It is also the fruit of the long Gramscian march through our institutions, especially that of higher education. I suggest you read the whole thing; I may write more about it in a future post.