Eric Adams Won as a Centrist, but Bold Progressives Took the Next 2 Biggest Citywide Contests
By - annah11
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Different elections call for different candidates.
AOC is a perfect fit for her district, but she would be a bad choice to run for a WV senate seat. And Joe Manchin would be a laughingstock if he tried to run in the Bronx.
We need all kinds of Democrats, because we have to win all kinds of elections. We Democrats seem to forget this a lot lately.
DeBlasio was plenty progressive, but so unpopular it limited what progressive gains he could make. People hate to admit it, but a more competent but less progressive mayor might have gotten more progressive accomplishments done than DeBlasio. (Or not. Nobody has a crystal ball. I’m just saying, a “centrist” win isn’t necessarily a “progressive” loss, and vice versa.)
Everything so far about the NYC elections seems to hint at one thing: progressive policies aren’t unpopular, but “defund the police” style messaging just isn’t popular. People want progressive policies, but they also want someone that can work with and improve/reform police.
What people are leaving out too is just that Adams has deep roots in NYC politics, people know him, he already had a base of support and he was a bit more “man of the people” (whether that’s true or not) than anyone else
Brad Lander literally is one of the biggest defund advocates in NYC
or its more simple than that. NYC elects right wing candidates in times of crisis. Think Rudy Giuliani and Bloomburg. Both elected when people felt unsafe. Now think about covid and what it did to the city.
This guy was as right wing as you could push a left wing city when there is no violence to hold up as a boogie man
There's also the fact that the progressive candidates had some glaring issues with them that easily would have killed their runs in a majority progressive area, even if the direct phrase "defund the police" had been polling >70%.
This guy barely had any competition in the first place because of who his opponents were as specific individuals.
Just my opinion, but I don’t think it’s a matter of left or right wing. I think people in high-crime areas are opting for a nuanced approach to the problem that affects them more significantly than many of us are familiar with.
They want police, they don’t want crime, but they also don’t want cops beating the shit out of people. They seem to largely want criminal justice reform and lower drug sentencing, but stiffer violent crime sentencing.
I think people in high crime areas actually more acutely perceive the nuances of police reform policies than many liberals and progressives.
Instead they will get more of the same.
> lower drug sentencing
the guy had a video about how to check your kids room for drugs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk2Wc4Y5CxE
TF you talking about
I’m sure he does, but that doesn’t change my point.
your point is dumb. There are no leaders in any of the left movements that say no police.
They say the police has tooo much money and not enough is spent on social programs that prevent violence and crime. Defund the police means reduce the funding and use that money else were.
There are only 5 states that (in the entire state) have more police than NYC has in just the city. the police budget (10 billion) is larger than the GDP of 60 plus countries.
You’re still not understanding what I’m saying, which isn’t surprising.
My point is you are pointing at a straw man and saying see that's why they vote right
No, I’m saying, “that’s why they’re open to a former cop and moderate/right-leaning candidate.”
Defund the police wasn’t well-messaged and was abused. Of course it wasn’t about actually just firing cops willy-nilly and having lawlessness. I never said it was. I said that the concept wasn’t wildly popular with many people living in high-crime areas that are conflicted because they want police mitigating violent crime but they don’t want the cops being assholes about it.
What I said comes from a place of political pragmatism. But hey, just downvote every civil response and maybe that’ll make you feel better.
It was always a terribly stupid slogan. Any slogan that requires an extended explanation of what it *really* means is a bad slogan.
Fortunately because some experienced politicians like Joseph Biden recognized that and refused to attach themselves to that particular bad slogan, we don't have another Trump term.
'Reform Law Enforcement' would have worked so much better as messaging. 'Defund The Police' went viral right away and conservatives have done what they do best and control verbiage... See tax relief and pro life for examples.
The way I see it, Biden won not only because he didnt attach himself to it (kowtowing to republican talking points isnt something new during election time), but also because he didnt do what you are doing. He didnt attack it or blame the people making the slogan who are actually out here trying to do something about a very real issue. Instead, he listened and talked about policy solutions. Many of which aligned with the defund movement. He walked a tightrope held up by red state dems and republicans trying to weaponize a human rights movement for political gain and freaking nailed it.
Youd also be hard pressed to convince me that some of Bidens stated policy goals arent a direct result of the Defund the Police movement. That was the intent of the movement. It wasnt designed as a slogan for Biden to run on. It was designed to influence policy. So a very good and effective slogan really.
That sounds like a way of saying that Joe Biden is an experienced politician who understands how to effectively communicate with voters and not fall into obvious traps that help his opponents.
I agree entirely. This notion enrages some "progressives" though.
Please source that data
Reorganising the message so it’s “take funds from police and reinvest them into local communities” polls barely better than defunding. People just don’t want money taken out of police in the real world, period.
Date for Progress is the left wing Rasmussen, and if it was such a winning strategy, Dem primary voters wouldn’t elect people like Biden and Adams left and right.
You haven’t answered my question, so why do people like Biden and Adams always win the major races in Dem primaries? It’s all well and good winning tinpot, low turnout races for positions nobody knows like Controller, but the big ones always go the same way in spite of your so called popular support.
You mean percentage of the vote? Adams got double the votes that the controller got.
Then how do you explain the special election in New Mexico, where the Democrat actually won more of the vote than Biden did regardless of the "tough on crime" messaging from the Republican?
I’d say that few things are universal and all things are complex. This is a favored district for Democrats to begin with, and like I said, most progressive policies are fairly popular in urban districts. We’d have to find out what weight specifically her policies on criminal justice and police reform had with voters versus the other issues.
And they elect a former Republican. Good luck with that.
Elizabeth Warren is a former Republican
The thing is, Eric Adams isn't actually that centrist
Like, he's no progressive. But the main area where people call him a centrist is regarding police issues, but while he's in favor of a tougher approach than some other Dems, he's in the past and present also been a big supporter of liberal police and justice reform. He's not the old school tough on crime sort of politician, he's someone who may want more cops but also wants cops to be reformed and held more accountable
He's an ex-Republican cop who is cool with stop-and-frisk. He's more right-wing than a centrist.
He was a republican for a few years in the 90s, he was a Democrat before and after that point. And there's nothing wrong with being a cop
Can't argue with purity trolls, who are certain that their beloved idols only lose because they aren't *pure enough*.
BLM might disagree with your last statement.
BLM is a movement for racial justice and against police brutality. It isn't a movement that just says all cops are bad (no matter how much the right may try to dishonestly strawman the movement into looking like some extremist thing)
Even the cops that aren't actively looking out to beat minority people are protecting the ones that are.
If you really think all cops are bad, your ideas are extremist and out of touch with the American people
I'm not a progressive lmao
Progressives could benefit from recognizing that mainstream Democrats don't agree with them on everything but aren't as right wing or different from them as many progressives seem to think
And yeah, Adams has an existing track record for pushing for reform of the police, it isn't crazy to think he'd genuinely support reform and that he wasn't just faking his support for 20 or 30 years
What reforms do you expect?
Idk, I'm not an expert on NYC police or proposed reforms or anything
Former New Yorker here, NYC you are making a giant mistake. I'm not sure what this guy's deal is, but he's been a weirdo for a long time. He can't manage his own life, let alone a major city. This is like watching someone slow motion drive their car across a desert and smash into a lone tree.
Progressives should focus on fixing economic issues. Social issues, generally, will be fixed when economic disparities are fixed.
The problem is that they think they are "fixing" economic issues. They actually believe all the populist horseshit and ideologues posing as experts.
Good. Yet another "moral victory" for progressives.
No its a half victory or quarter or whatever. They won, just not everything.
Crazy how progressives win everything except anything that actually matters. Bernie for President, Booker for KY sen, Wiley for NYC mayor etc if it’s not a D+30 House district or some random small position the general populace hasn’t heard of like the Controller, it don’t happen for them.
Because moderates care for one thing, protecting a status quo that works for themselves and no one else. You can celebrate that if you like but it will lead this country to even worse outcomes.
what an empty statement
But it sounds deep and edgy for an intro to political science college course so naturally it belongs on this subreddit
How do explain The Squad and general left-wing messaging in the past few years then? They are winning, it just takes time.
They win in a few D+30 House districts. That’s not winning, a glass of water would win in their districts if you put a D next to it. Any time they go into an even remotely competitive race, they lose again and again.
If Adams is a popular mayor who oversees a reduction in crime he might develop a national following.
I'll take a counter bet that very quickly he becomes an international embarrassment and the world will wonder how on earth he was elected.
Even BDB wasn’t an international embarrassment so I’ll take that bet easily.
De Blasio will seem like a perfect statesman next to what I bet will be the shambolic Adams term.
This ACAB bs has got to go away, it’s a complete and utter failure and a massive electoral liability.
Crime is being caused by covid? Have you been to NYC recently? Covid may contribute to crime but there are so many other factors causing crime to rise, cash less bail, defunding the police, disbanding the anti crime unit…..I could go on but covid is far down the list
would’ve taken all three if people hadn’t falsely smeared Yang as a right wing spy…
Yang never had a fucking chance, dude.
He was a West-Coast tech-bro who decided his foray into politics should be the *Presidency* and then decided that if that didn't work, how about NY mayor?
This might be hard for you to grok, but there are a lot of things that really hamper politicians when it comes to getting votes: A total lack of experience is a hard bar to overcome (but not impossible), as is *absolute fucking carpet-bagging*.
People don't really tend to *trust* guys who move 3000 miles to run for office and claim they can "fix the town" they don't goddamn live in.
Trump managed to overcome inexperience because of billions in free air-time and GOP's fealty to anyone with an R after their name.
Clinton, in New York, managed to overcome moving there to run for the Senate due to *vast experience*, *vast name recognition*, *support from LOTS of local politicians* -- the outgoing Democratic Senator, among others, asked her to move and run.
Some fucking tech-bro who had one popular idea and a lot of shitty ones, who popped in from the wrong coast and pimped unpopular ideas and made stupid, amateur mistakes never had a fucking chance.
*For good reason*.
>Yang never had a fucking chance, dude.
>He was a West-Coast tech-bro who decided his foray into politics should be the Presidency and then decided that if that didn't work, how about NY mayor?
What are Yang's connections to the West Coast? Nice racism.
>This might be hard for you to grok, but there are a lot of things that really hamper politicians when it comes to getting votes: A total lack of experience is a hard bar to overcome (but not impossible), as is absolute fucking carpet-bagging.
Hillary was the blatant carpetbagger. Yang was born in upstate, and lived in NYC for 25 years.
>People don't really tend to trust guys who move 3000 miles to run for office and claim they can "fix the town" they don't goddamn live in.
Again, total misinfo.
>Trump managed to overcome inexperience because of billions in free air-time and GOP's fealty to anyone with an R after their name.
what relevance does this have?
>Some fucking tech-bro who had one popular idea and a lot of shitty ones, who popped in from the wrong coast and pimped unpopular ideas and made stupid, amateur mistakes never had a fucking chance.
Yang was never a one-issue candidate, and I hope you enjoy Adams making "stupid, amateur mistakes" under the spotlight.
Yang lost because he was a mess
Where’s the scientific data to back up your point?
well, he was the front runner, by a lot. Then he made a comment on Israel and AOC personally smeared him. After that, he was was taken on with a hyper aggressive anti-Yang campaign. I mean just go look at Twitter’s timelines. Look at the other guy who responded with anti-Yang “west coast tech bro” rage that was entirely factually inaccurate. It’s all readily available if you care to look.
Meanwhile, “He was a mess.” says nothing. You didn’t like his hair cut or something?
Edit: want to note he made the same comments on Israel as the other candidates including Adams.
So, not scientific either, just opinions... He was the front runner, people are going to criticize him. He has to be a strong enough candidate to rise above that and he wasn’t. The messiness of his campaign was also frequently discussed. I like the guy but it was very haphazard.
I provided things that happened. You are sticking with “He was a mess” and trying to make ME the one with empty sentiments… It’s not even junior high debate level…