Good overview. It's also worth noting that many big Republican party establishment elements (Heritage Foundation (founded 1979), Fox News (1996), Americans for Prosperity (2004)) all ended up weathering the Tea Party and then Donald Trump. They were not thrown out on the streets. They did not radically change their policy views for the most part either.
Eric Cantor on the other hand, lost his primary. The Bush family and foreign policy alum, pretty heavily lost their influence in the party. So measuring when an establishment is thrashed or not can be a tricky matter of perspective.
Finally, too many pundits are tacitly suggesting that if Democrats have a Tea Party moment (and one could argue a DSA socialist winning the Dem primary in the largest city is the Dem version of this), it will look the same as the Tea Party. This doesn't follow. The Republican Party has a critical mass base of native-born white protestant voters since their founding in the mid-19th century. This element of a base has a powerful influence on national Republican politicians, and there's basically no sociological equivalent to it in the national Democratic party today or historically.
I think you put too much faith to 'the establishment', that lost to Trump twice and let people lose trust in institutions despite having the majority of the money and media on their side, by suggesting they chose to sit this one out. I think it is their inability of cognitive empathy for the average working class person (who give close to 0 fucks about Ukraine/Israel and climate change)
I mean, I don't think the Establishment has done so well recently, but presumably they have been trying to get back in touch and become less bad. My problem is that people are a) blaming their support of Cuomo for Mamdani's win and b) claiming that Mamdani's win proved how terrible and stupid and out of touch they all are.
The idea of this post is to give a number of arguments to the effect that they actually were pretty hands-off, and Mamdani's win shouldn't be counted as strong evidence that they've lost much power or credibility. Do you have any objections to that claim in particular?
I think trying to present a narrative of Mamdani being antisemetic didn't appeal to voters. I don't know much about the inner workings of dem strategists and donors talking to each other, i just see that they consistently fail to engage with large audiences online. Michelle Obama has a podcast and gets one tenth of the viewers Candace gets. If they were afraid of Mamdani gathering support, idk if they would have done anything different.
Interesting points... I think the antisemitism line definitely swung Jewish groups, which have historically been a pretty important (and unified) bloc in NYC elections, but I can see how it would be unappealing the median voter.
The blob is either dead or anxious. The was a time when the blob could make an early choice and coordinate support for a candidate. The blob either doesn't have nearly as much resources anymore, or lacks the courage and power to choose a candidate and commit to the bit.
The latter option makes a lot more sense to me. It neatly matches a common feature of modernity, a focus on optimization instead of actualization.
(e.g. housing and environmental policy, government (especially military) contracting)
Good overview. It's also worth noting that many big Republican party establishment elements (Heritage Foundation (founded 1979), Fox News (1996), Americans for Prosperity (2004)) all ended up weathering the Tea Party and then Donald Trump. They were not thrown out on the streets. They did not radically change their policy views for the most part either.
Eric Cantor on the other hand, lost his primary. The Bush family and foreign policy alum, pretty heavily lost their influence in the party. So measuring when an establishment is thrashed or not can be a tricky matter of perspective.
Finally, too many pundits are tacitly suggesting that if Democrats have a Tea Party moment (and one could argue a DSA socialist winning the Dem primary in the largest city is the Dem version of this), it will look the same as the Tea Party. This doesn't follow. The Republican Party has a critical mass base of native-born white protestant voters since their founding in the mid-19th century. This element of a base has a powerful influence on national Republican politicians, and there's basically no sociological equivalent to it in the national Democratic party today or historically.
I think you put too much faith to 'the establishment', that lost to Trump twice and let people lose trust in institutions despite having the majority of the money and media on their side, by suggesting they chose to sit this one out. I think it is their inability of cognitive empathy for the average working class person (who give close to 0 fucks about Ukraine/Israel and climate change)
I mean, I don't think the Establishment has done so well recently, but presumably they have been trying to get back in touch and become less bad. My problem is that people are a) blaming their support of Cuomo for Mamdani's win and b) claiming that Mamdani's win proved how terrible and stupid and out of touch they all are.
The idea of this post is to give a number of arguments to the effect that they actually were pretty hands-off, and Mamdani's win shouldn't be counted as strong evidence that they've lost much power or credibility. Do you have any objections to that claim in particular?
I think trying to present a narrative of Mamdani being antisemetic didn't appeal to voters. I don't know much about the inner workings of dem strategists and donors talking to each other, i just see that they consistently fail to engage with large audiences online. Michelle Obama has a podcast and gets one tenth of the viewers Candace gets. If they were afraid of Mamdani gathering support, idk if they would have done anything different.
Interesting points... I think the antisemitism line definitely swung Jewish groups, which have historically been a pretty important (and unified) bloc in NYC elections, but I can see how it would be unappealing the median voter.
The blob is either dead or anxious. The was a time when the blob could make an early choice and coordinate support for a candidate. The blob either doesn't have nearly as much resources anymore, or lacks the courage and power to choose a candidate and commit to the bit.
The latter option makes a lot more sense to me. It neatly matches a common feature of modernity, a focus on optimization instead of actualization.
(e.g. housing and environmental policy, government (especially military) contracting)
(Also—falling birthrates & safetyism in general.)