Democrats’ Empire State Split

New York’s progressives launch a salvo against centrists over the future of the state party.

By
31
Reps. Mondaire Jones and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talk with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Capitol Hill in August 2021. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

State GOP chairmen in a number of battleground states are facing ire from within their own party after aligning with MAGA candidates in the midterm and failing to fulfill their most basic responsibility: win elections. 

But a mirror-image struggle for the future of a state political party is happening in traditionally deep-blue New York: Democratic Party Chairman Jay Jacobs is batting away calls for his ouster in the wake of a red wave in the Empire State, despite Democrats outpacing expectations nationally.

It’s the progressive wing of the party that’s targeted Jacobs, who was appointed to the post in 2019 by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and who prides himself as an “outspoken voice of the moderate wing of our party.” A letter published Nov. 14 and signed by more than 1,100 local Democratic leaders and party organizers in New York urged Gov. Kathy Hochul to move to oust Jacobs, blaming him for what they describe as the party’s failure “to commit the time, energy, and resources necessary to maintain our deep-blue status.” 

But Hochul has made clear she has no plans to replace him, and Jacobs has brushed aside calls to move aside as nothing more than progressive saber-rattling due to his yearslong refusal to endorse democratic socialists in key New York congressional and mayoral races. 

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
31
By
Comments (31)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. MathewA

    "“So I think without knowing what you’re talking about—which is something that AOC does an awful lot"

    so much win here.

    And so typical of extremists on both sides. We didn't win, obviously it's because we weren't didn't run extreme enough candidates that didn't say stupid enough things. More cow bell

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Great article, Audrey.

    Collapse
  3. Circleglider

    This article is just more repetitive clickbait for The Dispatch’s carefully curated honeypot. If the voters truly wanted “moderation,” they wouldn’t have just given Progressives a resounding vote of confidence.

    Collapse
    1. MathewA

      They didn't give progressives a vote of confidence they said no to MAGA election lies.

      Collapse
  4. Jfan

    A few technical notes: Party chairs are not appointed by governors, but elected by state committees, although state committees routinely rubber-stamp governors' requests. Also, Jamaal Bowman wasn't the candidate who beat Jones in the 10th district.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Blake Fischer

    Yikes. That Jacobs quote about AOC not knowing what she’s talking about was spicy.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Stephanie

    Good piece! I live in the Hudson Valley, and Maloney was my Congressman. In retrospect he probably should've run in the 18th--but complicating that was that most of those voters--in the re-drawn 18th--didn't know him. Pat Ryan is my new Congressman and was county executive in the "new" territory added to the 18th, so he was a better fit.

    I blame the redistricting; also the Progressives: they primaried Maloney and forced him to spend and campaign needlessly in the Primary season, which ran into late August due to the redistricting--and then he beat their candidate Allessandra Biaggi by a huge margin.

    And finally there was a lot of hysteria about crime, even though crime rates were actually DOWN in the upstate counties. But it's easy and a usual Republican tactic to whip up hysteria about crime. It's also very easy to mislead people about bail reform, because most people don't actually know how that works, and that there's nothing radical about it.

    Collapse
    1. MathewA

      Can voters only care about crime exactly where they live? Can they not be concerned about crime in places they might travel to like perhaps NYC?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        You mean, when they're voting for their Congressional representative, who has absolutely no control over any intrastate issue, including crime in New York City?

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    In the absence of an unequivocal loss, progressives still don’t seem to be getting the message that they need to adjust their message and approach. Progressive policies have led to inflation and crime, just as had been predicted. They still don’t believe it, though. Now their politics of harassment and abuse seem to have pushed Kristen Sinema to switch her party status to an Independent. A year and a half of pushing for oversized progressive initiatives meant they passed up a compromise offer of $1.5 billion from Manchin and Sinema, convinced a lot of voters they were fiscally irresponsible and dysfunctional, and then they acted as if it was a great accomplishment to end up with a deal half the size what Manchin had offered a year previously.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      Kirsten Sinema is a separate issue. Nobody pushed her to become independent. She knows she'd be primaried because she's so unpopular in AZ among Democratic voters, and for good reasons--working to help plutocrats rather than her constituents, and generally poor constituent service.

      She's obviously playing a game of chicken (thanks, Jonathan Chait for pointing this out) with the DNC.

      In 2024, if she runs as an independent 3rd party candidate she won't win, but will act as a spoiler and the Republican candidate will win. She is trying to force the DNC to back her instead of a Democrat.

      But, if they do, she'll still lose the general. No Republicans will vote for her if their own candidate is a normal person, and Democrats there don't like her.

      On the other hand if the DNC calls her bluff and runs a good candidate in the general, she might possibly fold up her tents and leave. No one can count on any of that happening.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        George.Skinner

        Is the primary challenge and unpopularity among some Arizona Democrats anything more than progressive Democrats who refuse to admit that there's a need to compromise on some issues and displeasure that she wouldn't back their maximalist goals?

        Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Bill B

    Great piece. I'm beginning to notice Democrats seem to be recruiting out of the Democratic Socialists Of America(DSA). The number of DSA members in Congress are at an all time high. Both AOC, Tlaib, Bowman and I believe Jones are DSA members.

    I wonder whether the distinction between Progressives and Democratic Socialists is getting lost in the public mind or in reality. I'm not sure how important that distinction is or if it practically exists. In any event, these aren't your father's "liberals". In this perhaps Democrats are replicating the Republican/MAGA identity crisis?

    From what I can observe Democratic Socialists seem to encourage that conflation with Progressives. They are happy to describe themselves as such. Perhaps recognizing that "socialist" still has a negative connotation in the public. But the Right wing is more than happy to accommodate and amplify that confusion. I suppose a good question to ask Democratic leaders is whether the Democratic Party intends on becoming the Socialist Party and if not what are they doing about it? If they don't clear up any confusion it will have electoral consequences... remember "Defund the Police"?

    It woud also have an impact on Democratic Party membership. Kysten Sinema has just announced she's leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an Independent. I imagine in no small part because of conflicts with the DSA/Progressives in the party.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      Don't get all exccitteed about the DSA. They're the Bernie wing and they're a splinter group; not to mention not socialist. (Socialist in name only?)

      Anyone who lived through the Cold War is not worried about "socialism" overtaking the US. That's just another loaded term that Republicans try to scare their base with.

      They used the same tactic to try to stop Social Security and Medicare (a guy named Ronald Reagan tried to whip up panic about it, famously).

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill B

        There are a variety of “socialisms” that don’t track with the hammer and sickle variety. So I’m not making lists here just pointing out the generational and ideological shift. Actually Bernie isn’t a member of DSA but there are plenty of Congressional and local politicians and officials who are. I’m not sure what you mean by “socialist in name only”? Whatever variant of socialism they’re attached to it’s still “socialism” and they seem to like the label. I doubt very much it’s possible to dismiss them as if they were just confused “liberals” and socialism is just something they hang on the wall like a Che Guevara poster.

        I’m not excited about it but neither do I dismiss the idea that ideology matters.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Stephanie

          They have a website that lists their campaign priorities: 1) making politicians accountable to their constituents and not their donors; 2) a stronger labor movement/unions; and 3) Green New Deal to address the climate crisis.

          Nothing scary there that I can see.

          Some of it is similar to populist trends on the right.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill B

            Not surprising. Then again reading a limited list of what MAGA wants is probably pretty prosaic; it’s what isn’t said and what comes with it that’s the problem.

            From DSA website; “our ultimate goal is to build a democratic member-led working-class political party, in the meantime, we will build our chapters so that they can master all of the functions and responsibilities of a party independent of the influence of the Democratic Party establishment and capitalist class. ”.

            So they definitely don’t see themselves as Democrats but see the Democratic Party as a vehicle for their own agenda.

            It remains true that they claim to be socialists and they are. I think it’s a mistake both politically and practically to pretend they are simply a kind of over enthusiastic “liberal”. That has electoral consequences once Republicans can point to DSA “Democrats” and say, “See, we told you they were socialists!”. Regardless how one feels about socialism it still retains a negative connotation in the American public’s mind.

            Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Jblankenship7276

    I think there might be a marked increase of deep REM sleep across America if people would simply understand that very diverse countries must ground their system in COMPROMISE in order to effectively govern. The truth is that , if everything is working as it should, no one gets everything of all that they want. However , everyone gets something. There is really no other way. It's no longer the Virginia Plan vs the New Jersey Plan but the reality of compromise remains as red, white and blue as the Constitution itself. Sorry extremists. This reality makes your positions more like religion than politics.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      BloggerBarbie

      Amen. Not every issue is some deep, moral crusade about which there is no compromise (slavery, civil rights). If you're all in on nationalized health care, that's great, keep up your fight, but understand that a victory might be finding a technical way to cover some chronic conditions without dismantling the entire system. Don't then stomp your feet and cry because it didn't include plastic surgery for your dog. And if you're totally against nationalized health care, recognize that keeping routine procedures private is a victory, even if someone else makes a convincing argument that emergency care shouldn't depend on your economic status.

      Sigh.

      (Which is not to say that there are NO uncompromising moral positions. There are. They're just a lot rarer than people pretend, and rarely have much to do with policy.)

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        Explain how "keeping routine procedures private" is even an issue with any type of health care? Let's not forget that Medicare is "nationalized."

        Or maybe I misunderstood what you said.

        Also, I am not seeing why you introduced the topic of healthcare. There are 7 comments so far and you're the first one to bring it up.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          BloggerBarbie

          "Private" as in "privately provided" instead of state supplied, not private as in medical privacy. :D

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Stephanie

            Do we have “state-supplied” medical procedures? As a health care professional/provider, this is a term I’m not familiar with.

            Medical care is provided by the same providers to all and it’s the same care received by all. The only difference is who is paying, but money is fungible.

            So what exactly is the victory and for whom?

            Collapse
  10. DTruitt

    Virtually all of the media focus this past election cycle has been on dysfunction within the GOP, while totally ignoring the dysfunction within the Democrats. This kind of focus and analysis also ignores the fact that American voters are dissatisfied with both parties equally.

    The resignation from the Democrats by Krysten Sinema this morning is a perfect example of how the extremists are making the Democrats just as dyfsunctional as are the Republicans. She stated that explicitly in her formal resignation statement. I had predicted here in these threads prior to the election that Sinema was not long for the Democratic party. Whether she caucuses with the Democrats or the Republicans is something that she has not yet stated ... so I do expect that Mitch McConnell will make an effort to draw her into the GOP caucus where she would likely have more influence ... and it would also deny the Democrats the ability to approve all of Biden's appointments or deny sharing of committee assignments 50/50. She will not register as a Republican, apparently, as she is now registered as an independent.

    Collapse
    1. Krbrady1919

      Absolutely. When progressives should be hearing that their messaging and policies are alienating people, they instead think, "We need to TRIPLE down on it!" It is 100% palm-to-forehead territory.

      Collapse
Load More