First of all, let me state that (mostly), the NYT doesn’t matter and this article actually points to its utter fecklessness and irrelevance in our politics. But, it is a hilarious example of how f’d the politics are there over at NYT HQ. Here’s the “analysis” provided by the Times after their political team was shown to be nothing but a crew of overpaid, power obsessed hacks..
The results showed a level of determination and energy among Democratic voters that was missing in that 2024 election. This time, their candidates were stronger, their campaigns focused intensely on affordability and an intense desire to deal a blow to President Trump. If the huge No Kings protests last month were the shot, Tuesday’s election was the chaser, with Democrats showing once more that they could turn out to deliver a powerful vote when Mr. Trump is in the White House.
Yet for all the invigoration that success brings, the Democratic Party still hasn’t coalesced around a coherent political identity or a clear electoral playbook that can win in swing states and safe states alike. The results on Tuesday suggest that an intraparty battle may be looming for the Democrats as they get ready for difficult House and Senate midterm elections in 2026 and a wide-open presidential primary contest in 2027 and 2028.
So, where is the data underlying their arguments? It doesn’t exist, just a bunch of suppositions cloaked in “expertise” for people who were formerly good journalists until they decided, after speaking to lots of politicians, voters and consultants “hey, I’m really the expert.” It’s akin to a reporters covering ad agencies or scientists deciding that they are the ones who really know what’s what. And, unfortunately, this is encouraged by the desperately insecure senior management and owners who believe that somehow they exist to serve their own power rather than their readers (who don’t want this crap). But, here’s more from this absurd farce.
Prominent Democratic leaders want to have it both ways, saying on Tuesday that it’s time for a new era of “big tent” politics within the party, accommodating both Mr. Mamdani’s fellow progressives and center-left establishment Democrats. These leaders think the key for Democrats — and a lesson from Tuesday’s results — is combining winning issues like the high cost of living with a be-everywhere, be-authentic style of campaigning and communicating, while focusing less on policies and litmus tests that divide the party.
“What works in Manhattan will not work in Virginia, and what works in Virginia won’t work in Michigan — and that’s all right,” said Senator Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from the swing state of Michigan, which Mr. Trump won in 2024. “Winning in different places around the country with very different voters and experiences should be celebrated, not attacked.”
Then, at the end, we find the source of for this deep insight, that sage Howard Wolfson. Yes, that Howard Wolfson former advisor to Hillary Clinton, Ned Lamont and MIchael Bloomberg (and now advisor to other very rich and powerful people).
“There will now be a battle within the Democratic Party between the people who will point to Spanberger and Sherrill as models for the kinds of campaigns we need to run, and Mamdani as a model for a different kind of politics,” said Howard Wolfson, a former deputy mayor of New York City and a Democratic strategist. “What it all comes down to is the Democrats need to figure out who they want their standard bearers to be in 2026 and 2028.”
The NYT is having a hard time being so wrong and it’s delightful.
