It’s fully understandable that the Democratic Party doesn’t want to embrace a firebrand and anti-Semitic socialist in the most visible race of the off-year election cycle, doubly so after the Charlie Kirk assassination tragedy last Wednesday.
However, someone should probably tell House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland that the party shouldn’t tear itself to bits over the candidacy of Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor.
That person shall not be me — please, read no further, you two! No peeking! — but someone should tell them.
In a speech Saturday in Des Moines, Iowa, Van Hollen endorsed Mamdani then said it was time for other Democrats to do the same — a rather pointed jab at Jeffries, the fellow New York Democrat who has refused, thus far, to come down on Mamdani’s side.
Jeffries, meanwhile, drew further attention to the rift by saying through a spokesman, and I quote, “Chris Van Who?”
During his remarks, Van Hollen said that all Mamdani was focused on was “ensuring that people can afford to live in the place where they work” and that “Donald Trump and New York’s financial elites see that as a threat.”
“Yet, many Democratic members of the Senate and the House representing New York have stayed on the sidelines,” Van Hollen said to a group of party activists, according to The New York Times.
“That kind of spineless politics is what people are sick of. They need to get behind him and get behind him now.”
“We’ve become a party that too often trims its sails. Too cautious, too rudderless. Too attached to poll-washed, pundit-rinsed, and donor-dried messages,” he added. “What comes out of the wash is all bleached and blow-dried.”
Will Zohran Mamdani be the next mayor of New York City?
While there isn’t exactly any hair on Jeffries’ head to blow-dry, it’s obvious who he was referring to — along with another fellow Democratic New Yorker, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who hasn’t endorsed Mamdani either.
Schumer, the paper noted, had met with Mamdani earlier in the week and promised to “keep talking.” Jeffries took a different tack, albeit through spokesman Justin Chermol.
“Leader Hakeem Jeffries will have more to say about the general election well in advance of Nov. 4,” Chermol said.
“Meanwhile, confused New Yorkers are asking themselves the question: Chris Van Who?”
Meow.
A lot can change in a month and a half, as Mamdani himself amply proved by storming back from a distant second in the polls for Democratic nominee to take the ranked-choice primary over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, but that was from a position as a relative unknown.
His biggest adversary in the November election is still Cuomo, and Andy doesn’t seem to be closing the gap any. Just the opposite, in fact.
Only one poll since July started has Cuomo within less than 10 points, according to the Times’ polling compendium — that one being an outlier HarrisX poll that showed Mamdani ahead by only three points — and the last five polls they’ve listed have the socialist assemblyman ahead by 15, 22, 15, 21, and 14 percentage points, respectively. That’s not especially close with what are now two known quantities.
Beyond picking a winning horse, there’s also the fact that, for better or ill, Mamdani is who their party’s voters chose. Sure, those voters may be a bunch of white, privileged Brooklyn hipsters whose parents still pay their rent, but you can’t pick your base. This [clap emoji] is [clap emoji] what [clap emoji] democracy [clap emoji] looks [clap emoji] like [clap emoji]! [Ukrainian flag emoji] [LGBT flag emoji]!
Naturally, the fact that Jeffries and Co. don’t want to be dragged into backing a winning horse that their fanatic base loves indicates they love neither the horse nor the base.
Who could blame them?
In this climate, a guy who says that the slogan “globalize the intifada” isn’t necessarily, you know, a bad thing might indeed be an anchor upon the party’s hopes. And, while the Very Online liberal class may have thought Kamala was “brat,” the GOP’s 2024 swing-state sweep (along with a popular vote victory in the presidential race, something the party didn’t even care about) indicates that stuff didn’t work on the people who count.
And they’re hardly being polite about it, either. Van Hollen’s rhetorical subtweeting of Jeffries was also childish enough without the slightest vestige of wit — or even attempted wit — attached to it. But then, it’s exponentially less immature than “Chris Van Who?”
Somebody should tell Jeffries and Van Hollen that tearing each other to bits is a bad look. But that someone won’t be me. And it shouldn’t be you, either. In other words: No ratting, you guys. Let the voters deliver the message to them, instead.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
