To translate from the Murdochian, “hateful” here means being opposed to genocide, police brutality and rent-gouging (New York Post, 6/24/26).
The win by a number of progressive candidates in New York City primaries told us something about corporate media. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post (6/24/26) surprised no one with a front page declaiming: “The Hateful Slate: Three Israel, Cop and Private Property Hating Mamdanites Win Democrat Congressional Primaries.”
(They might want to focus group “Mamdanite” again. It’s hard to say, much less shout angrily.)
But check also the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal’s references to New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani as a “kingmaker” because he endorsed some of the day’s winners. AP (6/24/26) referred to the “Mamdani slate” as showcasing his “rising influence.” The wire service called this a
potential headache for Democratic leaders, who fear that Mamdani and his loyalists may push the party too far left ahead of November’s midterm elections.
The barely concealed subtext is that voters didn’t elect these candidates because they vowed to fight for things their constituents want, like childcare, a billionaire tax and abolishing ICE; they’re just mindlessly following their new overlord. For these outlets, regular, working people are something to invoke, not people to actually listen to.
A New York Times headline (6/17/26) obscured the fact that the Goldman/Lander race was between two Jewish Democrats.
Of course, part of the upset around the upset is because New York City’s primary results show that uncritical material and ideological support for the state of Israel and its genocidal attack on Palestinians is no longer a requirement for electoral acceptance. That shift is real, and you can watch elite media struggle.
For instance, a New York Times story (6/17/26) on the contest between Dan Goldman and Brad Lander was headlined “A Jewish Democrat’s Support of Israel May Cost Him His NYC House Seat”—but might have just as easily been headlined “A Jewish Democrat’s Criticism of Israel May Win Him a NYC House Seat.” It all depends whose views you think are worth representing.
From FAIR via This RSS Feed.
This has been the fundamental failure of the Democrat party for at least 30 years now - the establishment just goes through its endless rounds of symposia and consultation and cocktail parties, talking to each other. They can’t bear the thought of demeaning themselves by going out and actually talking to the riff raff. And every failure - every drop in the polls - is seen through that lens. They just sit around telling each other how awful it is that the riff raff can’t or won’t appreciate what they’re doing for them - are just too primitive and dull-witted to recognize that they - the enlightened leaders - know what’s best for them.
Which is the real difference between them and Mamdani (and Sanders and AOC and so on). The establishment Dems talk down to the voters, telling them what they should want. The new challengers talk to the voters, finding out what they really do want, then telling them what they’re going to do about whatever it is that the voters really do want.
The real hell of it is that it’s fairly likely that to some notable degree, it’s not even that the establishment Dems simply take the position that the voters are only able to blindly follow. I think they sincerely believe that - that it’s not so much that they won’t step outside of their well-funded little centrist circlejerk, but that they can’t - that they’ve spent so many years now just talking to themselves that they’ve built up essentially a mythology in which they’re all devout believers.
And even now, they can’t quite wrap their heads around the fact that the voters not only can choose for themselves, but are doing it, and that they’re choosing against the establishment Dems not because they’ve been led astray, but because they’re just sick and tired of the establishment Dems offering them nothing of any value but expecting their votes anyway. They’ve been given alternatives, and they’re taking them.
