What the RADICAL NYC Primary Results Reveal About the Future of the Democrat Party

What happened yesterday was fascinating in New York, alarming, disturbing, and fascinating from a political standpoint. Here's Van Jones. This is before we had the final results, but he saw it coming and he made a good prediction on it. Here's SOT 7. Well, New York City matters because the two most exciting left-wing candidates are here, AOC and Mamdani, but also this is a stronghold for the establishment, Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries. This is a battle between the establishment and this insurgency, and the roof is collapsing on the Democratic Party establishment tonight. If Mamdani gets a hat trick three out of three, this is a new era for the Democratic Party, and you can't write off New York City because this is the place where both, it's a power center for the establishment and the insurgency, and they're going head to head tonight. Right now, this is no longer a movement. This is a movement and a machine at the same time. There's just no way to sugarcoat this. If Mamdani pulls off the hat trick, it is a new era in Democratic Party politics. Andrew, he did. He did pull it off. Now, as the kids say, he has aura. He's got some swagger as a kingmaker instead of being this weirdo that just these crazy libs in New York City elected. He's got the juice right now. It is interesting how the local and the national have come together in New York. We've got Hakeem Jeffries, and you've got AOC, all these politicians in one place about this. Hakeem Jeffries has said, well, what does it matter what happened to these couple of deep blue districts inside New York? It matters a lot because nationally, the Republicans will try to tie the party to these far left candidates who are all going to say crazy things. They've already saying crazy things. At the same time, if you're a Democrat, a centrist Democrat, you've got to be really worried right now that you'll get primaried tomorrow by some 22-year-old or 25-year-old graduate student from Columbia, and they'll win. It's crazy, but this is the state of the Democratic Party right now. I think if you're a centrist Democrat, you should really be worried right now. Well, Andy, we had Henry Olsen on our show yesterday, Megan. Not just centrist Democrats, this is a very liberal Democrat. This guy, Dan Goldman, he led the impeachment against Trump. The other guy was the head of the Hispanic caucus who said he was rooting for Mexico in the World Cup. These are not moderate people. These are very, very liberal people who were challenged by very radical left-wing people. What Henry Olsen said on our show is that the ripple effects of this are that every Democrat in the House now, all of Hakeem Jeffries' conference is going to be looking over their shoulder. If they disagree with the progressives on anything, as you said, Andy, some college student will rise up and challenge him in the DSA, which Van Jones correctly says, not just a movement, but also a machine, will mobilize all these young people in their districts to vote against him. So the Democratic Party has a, well, it's a real reckoning within the Democratic Party now. We've been talking in the mainstream media for 10 years now how Trump wrecked the Republican Party. What do they think this is doing to the Democratic Party? You know, Tom, I heard you guys talking yesterday about the Israel factor. I mean, if I were a Democrat running for office against one of these DSA candidates, I would make perfectly clear that I don't support more aid to Israel and I don't support AIPAC's influence over American politicians. I would not let anybody get to my left on that issue, because you will lose as a Democrat now. You cannot be in yesterday's Democrat Party on Israel, or you're going to lose if you're running against one of these DSA candidates in one of these districts that's liberal. But you were making the point that the post-October 7th sympathy from the left is basically gone for Israel. And now it's been replaced by hostility from the left and even on the right. And the reason it jumped out at me, among others, is because it was a year ago, Tom. It was a year ago. It was last summer when I made that point myself to Piers Morgan on his show. And I said it as an Israel supporter. Israel's lost all the support of the Democrats and the independents are gone. The polls were showing it. That turned on Israel. And the polls are showing that Republicans are starting to turn. It was like some 6% had turned and it had gone up to like 9%. But it was starting and you could see the trend. And now it's more like 20 plus percent. The Iran war has since happened, which also didn't help. And that was the first time people started calling me an anti-Semite, just for saying. And I remember saying, Sid Rosenberg, a friend of mine in New York, broadcaster, was like, why would you say such a thing? I said, Sid, I say it as an Israel supporter. I don't want this to happen, but I'm telling you it's happening. This is a political reality. So Israel needs to wrap it up and keep itself out of the headlines. Well, it went a different way. And look what's happened as a result. Good luck finding any Democrat, really, who's pro-Israel now. Pro-APAC, never mind. Independence Jew. And that same sentiment is only growing in the wake of Iran amongst the GOP. So where does this go a year from now or even less than that, a few months from now in the midterms? Yeah, I mean, one of the interesting things about that race, the Goldman race, was that APAC stayed out of it. They didn't get involved. They kind of knew. And they know that their involvement in these primaries, whether Democrat or Republican, has now gotten to the point where it's counterproductive. And again, we talked about this before. Dan Goldman and Brad Lander agree on pretty much everything. But Lander managed, to your point, to get to the left, call himself a progressive Zionist and attack Dan Goldman on that issue. And look, we're seeing that not just in these House races. We're seeing that in the Michigan race. Al Sayed, for example, is attacking Haley Stevens as getting support from APAC. I mean, they're using it and have been using it for three years. He's running for the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat in Michigan. Correct. And he's doing well against two more establishment Dems. Chris Van Hollen just endorsed him about an hour ago, along with Bernie Sanders. Well, Graham Platner said all that same stuff, too, in Maine, Tom. Yeah, I mean, Graham Platner said it about Susan Collins. Exactly. So it is now a standard part of the Democratic playbook, and it's been effective. And so to your point, I think we've also seen, we saw it in the Massey race on the Republican side. There was a lot of talk about APAC and all that money. And so I don't know exactly where this ends up, but it certainly has it's a development that I think has people concerned because there's, you know, the using APAC is just sort of like a blanket. I mean, what people really I think what Democrats really mean when they talk about APAC is they're saying Jews, basically. It's not they're not making a distinction between, listen, I disagree with Bibi Netanyahu. I don't like him. I want to see him gone or, you know, the policy necessarily. It's used in a much more broad term that I think has a lot of people concerned. I think if you're talking about the Ilhan Omars of the world, you're totally right. But I think that the anti-Israeli government sentiment is widespread and heartfelt and not about Jews. I think when I think of APAC now, I think about a group that's more concerned with Israeli interests than American that's trying to manipulate American politicians to vote in a way that's good for Israel, irrespective of whether it's good for the US. That's what I think. And I don't want them having any influence over our politicians. And I have been an equal opportunity critic. I've spent years railing on care. I'm not I'm not a big fan of them either. I want our politicians to be voting on our concerns, what's in the best interest for us Americans. And I'm sick of these politicians doing the bidding of other countries. Go ahead, Andrew. Well, in answer to your original question, where will we be a year from now? A lot will depend on what happens in November. I mean, if Plattner loses, if Abdul Lassie loses, you may and they lose the they lose a chance to take over the Senate because of that. There may be a rethinking on the Democratic side. I mean, I would not count the moderates totally out right now. I do think there's some merit to the argument that, hey, these are a couple very blue districts. Well, we have this running joke on our show. We're caught. We want to do a branded segment called Carl's Naive Moments. And I'm just laughing because I think this is Andy's naive moment here. Wait, wait, wait. You don't think you don't think that if Plattner loses. Megan, I love you too much to engage in this conversation. Wait, let's go back to Andy's point. Andy's point is these races are not settled yet. Correct. Thank you. Carl and Andy are naive together on this. Well, I'll say it is widely considered the weakest nominee in that field. He may get the nomination. It'll be a test. He may win anyway. Plattner, the Democrats. It is Michigan. That's right. And the Democrats, the Democrats are stuck with with Plattner. And he's he said he said so many things that are out there, you know, and he's got this machine behind him, Bernie Sanders behind him. He's he's a socialist. He talks about not just the Iran war, but the Iraq war. So there's not. And he wants to pack the Supreme Court. That's right. That's right. He wants to do that. But but if if it comes down, if the if the Democrats do the impossible and carry, you know, Texas or Alaska and they lose because they and they don't get control of the Senate because they nominated one of these lefties in Maine or Michigan, that's what he's talking about. We don't know how this is going to work out. And so there may be you know, there may be a middle ground here. Kamala Harris ran my my not a great campaign when she was the presidential nominee. She didn't hold a single press conference. But one thing she did in Chicago when she talked about this issue was she spoke, I thought, smartly and empathetically about both Palestinians and Israelis. And I and depending on what happens in November, the Democrats would Andy's suggestion. I think this is a possibility. They may move back towards that. It doesn't have to be all in on Israel. It doesn't have to be this bashing of Zionism. They could have a more nuanced position, but whether they do will depend, I think, on whether they control the Senate or not. That's an interesting point. I don't really agree because the numbers of Democrats like Democrats approval of Israel and of U.S. involvement like with the partnership with Israel are so there. It's like 80, 90 percent against. It's not marginal. It's that their voters do not support Israel, especially the young, the young ones are going to respond to straight demographic. The young ones feel it ardently on the Republican side to a majority of young Republicans are opposed to the alliance we have with Israel, don't want any more aid going to Israel and are sick of Israel getting us involved in what they see as its problems. But isn't that isn't that isn't that a lot of that because of the war right now and we're in? Yes. Yeah, that's what on the Republican side. Yes. But the Democrats have seen Gaza as a genocide almost from ten, eight. They turned immediately. I'm with Megan. It's a two to tie. We got to get somebody to break the tie. Yeah. But look, I think that Israel is no longer avoidable. Like it's going it is going to be a huge issue in twenty twenty six and beyond. And I do think that the presidential contest is going to be shaken up by that issue in a way we have never seen before in America. And I think you're going to see all Democrat politicians try to make sure no one can get to their left on Israel. Thanks for watching this clip. If you're new here, subscribe. We got a whole lot more goodness where that came from. Would love to hear your feedback. You can email me to Megan, M-E-G-Y-N at Megan Kelly dot com or just leave a comment below. But join the community by becoming a subscriber. We really, really value your input and your support. You may not always agree, but we are always going to talk about it and respect. No BS, no agenda, no fear. Think about this. In 2006, twenty thousand dollars equaled roughly thirty three ounces of gold at spot price. At today's prices, those thirty three ounces would be worth about one hundred and sixty five thousand dollars. That's why many smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals. And that's why you should consider buying gold from Birch Gold Group. For thousands of years, gold has been a store of wealth. And today it's a crucial part of any balance strategy. Even better, Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered retirement account in gold. Just text MK to the number nine eight nine eight nine eight to receive your free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, just useful information with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers. Let Birch Gold help you diversify with gold. Now that's peace of mind. Again, text MK to nine eight nine eight nine eight today.