NYC council member [Chi Osse] prepares Democratic primary challenge against Hakeem Jeffries

[GJGCA]

NBC News:

Chi Ossé, a member of the New York City Council, has filed paperwork to launch a primary challenge against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

...

Ossé also publicly hinted at a run on Monday afternoon by writing in an X post, “Seems like we’re in a dire situation,” responding to another post noting Ossé had recently said he would not run for Congress and that it would take a "dire situation" for him to spend his twenties in the nation's capital.

...

The top House Democrat has not faced a competitive primary fight in the recent past, and has run unopposed in primaries in five of his last seven elections, including last year, in the deep-blue district. Jeffries won a seventh term last year by 51 points, and former Vice President Kamala Harris won the district by 44 points, both winning more than 70% of the vote.

Ossé was first elected to the New York City council in 2021 at just 23 years old, and he reportedly joined the Democratic Socialists of America earlier this year. Ossé is an ally of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, although the New York Times reported that Mamdani discouraged Ossé from challenging Jeffries.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna244444

[yankee87]

1. Need new blood

I am going to be nice and just say this is great. The Democratic Party is wholly against the genocide in Palestine. Meanwhile, the current leadership is in the pocket of AIPAC.

[anciano]

2. Excellent....

IMO all members of the House and Senate ideally should have primary opponents each time they are up for re-election and also be subject to term limits. Congressional service should be a "public service", not a career.

[Samael13]

70. Wholeheartedly agree

[Autumn]

3. I will keep an eye on this guy he seems to be sharp. We need new blood if we are to do

the things that need to be done.

[lapucelle]

4. I look forward to the debates. N/T

[tritsofme]

12. There is no reason for Jeffries to waste his time with this guy.

[RandySF]

5. DU is giving 2015-16 vibes.

Lot of accounts I haven’t seen before going after Democratic figures (and not so much Republicans).

[Callie1979]

26. Yeah. And we know what happened in 2016.

[Seeking Serenity]

74. Hm, hmmm. Remember the 2008 "PUMA" crash out here?

That one left some long-lasting bitter memories. Thankfully, Obama/Biden went on to win going away.

[DFW]

105. You noticed that too?

Election season is upon us. Time to get moving. Republicans? What Republicans? Do you see any Republicans anywhere? I see lots of Democratic feet, including my own, and I have a loaded pistol pointed right at them. First things first!! Besides, Jeffries is 55. That’s thirty years older than any member of Congress ought to be, right? (Vermont excepted—those endorsements will have to come from somewhere, won’t they?).

2015-2016 indeed. It does seem like certain parties would love a repeat performance. After all, it turned out so well for us ten years ago…….

[QueerDuck]

6. It would be better if the effort were spent ATTACKING REPUBLICANS...

but that would make too much sense. That would help to weaken the GOP and to empower Democrats. But, for some odd reason, there are some individuals who think it's better to attack Democrats. Weird.

[Autumn]

8. A Democrat is running for the same office another Democrat hold. How is that

weaken Democrats? That's not a loss. You do know any Democrat has the right to run for another Democrats seat? It's not a god given job or a lifetime seat.

[QueerDuck]

11. Oh please. Nice strawman. I never made that argument and you know it.

My point is that we should be spending our time and effort and money attacking REPUBLICANS and trying to weaken them and reduce their numbers instead of wasting time on shit like this.

Of course he has "every right" to do so... that's irrelevant. What matters is this: IT'S A STUPID MOVE.

[Autumn]

13. It might be stupid to you but not to others. Dems can do more than one thing at a time.

[QueerDuck]

16. No, it's a stupid move.

Actually, I never argued whether Democrats could do more than one thing at a time... again, that's yet another weak strawman argument. Trying to sabotage and bloody up Jeffries is just a stupid move. He will fail. Deservedly so.

[Autumn]

20. We have spent years " attacking Republicans" and keeping some people in office "for their wisdom."

I don't know what you think when you see what's going on today, but I ask myself how did that work out for us? I think younger progressive politicians will get will get us what we need. The electorate is changing if we keep the same path we will stay right where we are.

[QueerDuck]

21. This is some Nina Turner level shit and sabotage...

going on here. It's insane. Her style and tactics have never helped... only harmed. Why encourage and defend it?

[Autumn]

22. Nice. You can't come up with a rebuttal so insult me. LOL but now I know

how nice to see you again and goodbye.

[QueerDuck]

23. How amusing. You think I'm talking about you when I'm not.

As far as i know, you're not the one running against Jeffries. But be sure to let us know if that changes. 🤣😂🤪🤡😀

[Autumn]

25. What amusing is you post to me and insult me but expect me to believe your not talking about me ?

Yeah gotcha Things never change.

[QueerDuck]

42. I have no such expectation that you will believe a conversation with you is not also about you.

... you're right... "things never change". Perfect!

[Nixie]

52. So Nina Turner is not one of your idols? She is a huge mouthpiece

for the Bernie movement, as you know. So it’s a bit strange you would say you’re being insulted over being compared to an idol.

[Callie1979]

28. It seems that no one has learned a thing from last year.

The reasons we lost are right in front of us but everyone wants to believe it was because we weren't progressive ENOUGH
And no one wants to discuss the reasons some Democrats voted for trump.

[leftstreet]

40. What about 6+mil who voted Biden

The 6+ million RELIABLY Democratic voters who voted Biden, but not Harris

Is the reason for this right in front of us?

[Callie1979]

45. Those are the ones I'm talking about. Has anyone asked them?

I've asked the few I know who admitted it.
And this is the first time I've heard an actual number. I didnt realize it was THAT many.
And as I've said in many other posts we're simply not allowed to have an open discussion HERE as to the reasons for their decision.

[QueerDuck]

44. Thank you.

[LR3]

56. No, it has nothing to do with "progressive enough"

The wide range of winners a couple of weeks ago show it isn't about degree of progressiveness, it is 100% about willingness to fight, no holds barred.

Schumer stands for nothing beyond staying in power, and Jeffries listens to the same milquetoast consultants that preach playing by outdated rules.

[Jbraybarten]

50. Oh ffs.

Whether or not one should run may be stupid in terms of attempting to defeat an incumbent, but we - thankfully - don't live in a system where it's prohibited from running.

JFC.

[QueerDuck]

69. And we, thankfully, don't live in a system where pointing out the stupidity of such vanities...

(and other gestures of purity) is prohibited either. I'll keep calling-out the stupid wherever I see it. Our time and money is better spent trying to attack, defeat, divide and weaken the GOP. It just amazes me that anyone thinks it's a good idea to do this to Democrats instead. JFC. FFS.



and

[Seeking Serenity]

78. Y'know, that's one of the reasons we have primary elections instead of nominating committees

So that new or different ideas or priorities can be compared and contrasted against those of the incumbents. Without those challenges, incumbents can be tempted to become lazy or stale, running with ideas that may no longer be relevant in the current time.

Now, that being said, I will never approve of dirty, smear primary campaigns. That's where the problems come in.

[Jbraybarten]

88. You're the one talking about purity.

[Samael13]

71. Why can't we do both

We should challenge Republicans but I see nothing wrong with democrats challenging democrats. Being in public office is a privilege not a right. The voters will decide who they want in the end.

[QueerDuck]

73. We can... it's just stupid to do so. Attack and smear the ones who deserve it (the GOP) not Democrats.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Swapping a Democrat for a Democrat does absolutely nothing in getting us closer to regaining control of Congress. But flipping a single GOP-held seat gets us a TWO-SEAT advantage. Do the math. Do your own research. Why waste time with these purity tests? It's just a vanity indulgence at the point. When we think and plan strategically rather than react emotionally... we'll do much better.

[Samael13]

75. I agree we need to flip republican seats

But I have no problem with a democrat running against a democrat in a primary in the end the voters will decide who they want on the ballot. Its how democracy works and I will always support that.

[Callie1979]

27. We certainly had a lot of folks who didnt want a primary in 2024

So whats the difference.

[Autumn]

34. I don't have a clue. I think primaries are very healthy for our system. Had we had one perhaps

we wouldn't be where we are.

[Callie1979]

46. I'm about 75% sure we wouldnt. But they wouldve had to have been straight with us

VP Harris was put in a terrible position she didnt deserve to be put in.
A different candidate wouldn't have had that problem.
But we should LEARN to better prepare for '26 & '28
Me getting a post hidden for asking a question I'm sure a LOT of people had abut the NYC race is an indicator that some dont WANT to learn

[MichMan]

84. Looks like there are some that don't want one in 2026 either.

[Dorian Gray]

32. So my opinion (a Brooklyite in a neighboring district)

I don't think that Osse has a chance. And I think the district, which is represented by the who most likely would be the next speaker of the house and all the influence that goes with that, would be insane to vote him out to get a newcomer in with no political influence.

District 8 spans Bed Stuy to Canarsie to Coney Island to parts of Bay Ridge. Osse is a city council member in good standing, and he's DSA aligned. (They have not given him any support yet.).

In the end Jeffries should WIPE THE FLOOR with him. But we will see.

My district has Lander thinking of Primarying Daniel Goldman, and I am VERY MUCH a Goldman appreciator. He's been an effective legislator and voice in the government. So that's another primary I'm not thrilled with.

[Cha]

41. Mahalo, Dorian Gray! I'm way out here across

Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2025, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)

the Mainland and the Ocean.. but I really like Rep Dan Goldman, for an long time now, and Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

TY for your Opinion of what's going on in Yours & Goldman's District!

And, Exactly this...

I don't think that Osse has a chance. And I think the district, which is represented by the who most likely would be the next speaker of the house and all the influence that goes with that, would be insane to vote him out to get a newcomer in with no political influence.

[Dorian Gray]

95. Thanks, Cha

It's interesting because Osse doesn't have the backing of AOC. Mamdani or the DSA (yet). So I'm curious how far this exploration of a run will go.

Lander is very popular in my neck of the woods, so he will do well in Brownstone Brooklyn. But not sure he'll do well in the other areas in our district: Wall Street, Borough Park, some Bay Ridge.

[Cha]

96. Thank YOu, DG... There's a report out

I read that Mayor Elect Mamdani isn't keen on Brad Lander.

I can't find it now but when I do I'm going to post it here for you to read.

[Cha]

97. PS I found it...

Snip***

Over the summer, Mamdani would confide he wasn’t much impressed with Lander. Nice enough guy, but he didn’t seem particularly effective as comptroller, Mamdani said according to a person familiar with his comments.

The two went weeks without talking, and though Lander would get defensive and blame overlapping post-election vacations, all his talk that he’d be the one really running the city next year had gotten back to Mamdani and not gone over well.

By the weekend before the election, Lander’s wife was telling friends at a party that Mamdani had called to tell the comptroller he would not have a job in the administration since he wasn’t getting the job he wanted.

By the day before the election, Lander was reaching out to major donors to solicit commitments for a congressional run against Rep. Dan Goldman, according to a person familiar with the matter.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/05/politics/how-zohran-mamdani-won

A couple of Tweets on it at the DU link..

lapucelle~

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20799513

[Scrivener7]

31. A Primary is not an attack. A Primary is how Democracy works. Too bad some don't understand that. Weird.

[QueerDuck]

43. Yes it is. Of course it is. It's a way to bloody-up an incumbent...

and deplete their campaign funds. This opens the door for a well-funded Republican to come in and flip the seat to GOP control.

Replacing a Democrat with another Democrat does absolutely nothing to move us closer to having a majority in either house of congress. Only when we FLIP seats and REMOVE Republicans and REPLACE them with Democrats are we ever going to gain control again. The math is quite simple..

Too bad some don't understand THAT. Weird.

[LR3]

57. LOL

Jeffries won with 75% of the vote in 2024. The idea that a primary would weaken him and an R would swoop in and win is laughable.

[QueerDuck]

60. Similarly, the idea that anyone thinks its worthwhile to WASTE money challenging a popular incumbent...

rather than putting towar much better use is equally laughable. (In this case, "better use" means using the money to DEFEAT GOP incumbents and FLIP SEATS in swing-districts and swing-states... OR... "better use" means to spend the money defending seats in areas that are historically swing-states or swing-districts where the Dem incumbent is threatened, or when the Dem nominee might not be able to pull off a win.

A one-for-one exchange (obviously for purity and vanity and virtue-signaling reasons) serves no good purpose, especially when it does absolutely NOTHING with regard to helping the Democrats regain control of Congress. But for every GOP seat that we flip, that gives us a TWO-SEAT advantage that we didn't have before.

Laugh-it-up! The math is easy. The hard part (for many) is being able to see the big picture and make strategic moves rather than emotional ones or being motivated by wanting revenge against Democrats.

[LR3]

62. When you argue as you do, you've lost

"for purity and vanity and virtue-signaling reasons" "emotional ones or being motivated by wanting revenge against Democrats."

Sure, anyone that wants to thoroughly bury the Republicans for a good long time is obviously "virtue signaling", "emotional", and "wants revenge against Democrats"

Better to play it cautious, don't fight too strenuously, and continue to listen to the Third Way advice. It sure has worked wonders so far!

[QueerDuck]

63. The non-ironic use of the phrase "Third Way" reveal much.

I'm always in favor of "strenuously" fighting Republicans (not Democrats.) The fact that so many are intent on denigrating Democrats goes with their treachery, sabotage and voter suppression (ahem... remember "leave it blank" anyone?)

It's an all-hands-on-deck moment... it's time to shit or get off the pot. It's a waste of time to continue taking cheap shots at Democratic leadership for vanity and purity reasons. In the end, it serves no useful purpose. It just amplifies the lies of the "both parties are the same" brigade. And this actually goes a very long way in explaining your "worked wonders so far" rhetorical observation. (So to speak.)

[LR3]

64. Yup, anyone that wants Democrats to fight harder

like for instance the vast majority of voters two weeks ago is:

"for purity and vanity and virtue-signaling reasons" "emotional ones or being motivated by wanting revenge against Democrats." as well as engaging in "treachery, sabotage and voter suppression".

JFC. What loser mentality.

[QueerDuck]

66. Fortunately, for now, those voters are motivated to support Democrats...

and that's why it's important to keep the momentum going. Parroting the "Democrats suck" message and amplifying the "both sides are the same" message, and defending or promoting the "leave it blank" and "uncommitted" efforts to punish the party do very little to sustain our current level of energy. The optimism needle is starting to move a little bit in our direction... I think everyone can agree that we do not need the purity tests and and attacks on our own party. Such attacks are better suited for those who actually DESERVE to be attacked and smeared: The Republicans.

[LR3]

79. Your strawman building abilities are world class!

You are REALLY REALLY REALLY good at ascribing motives, actions, and statements that never happened.

Claiming, baselessly, that I or anyone else is "parroting the "Democrats suck" message and amplifying the "both sides are the same" message, and defending or promoting the "leave it blank" and "uncommitted"". But, these go in the pile with all the other things you've wrongly claimed.

[QueerDuck]

85. Meh! Ho-hum... I'm just telling it like it is.

I never said anything about you. The "Democrats suck" message has been clear and loud... it's truly a waste of my time to interact with anyone who is pretending like it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't happen. Leave-it-blank was real and so was "uncommitted" ... It would be more productive for me to be talking to a waffle iron rather than to anyone who denies these realities.

🥱

[Scrivener7]

76. If you don't like the way the American system works, I don't know what to tell you.

This is a Democracy. If the majority of the party in his district agrees with you, Jeffries will survive. If not, he won't.

It's up to everyone. Everyone's opinion matters. Not just yours.

[SunImp]

90. Expect the same people here rushing to defend Jefferies or party leadership

to quickly change their tune when someone tries to primary certain reps in Michigan & Minnesota.

[Scrivener7]

93. Absolutely. And also, WTF? This is how our Democracy works and we have people on Democratic Underground

having hissy fits over it.

I can't even.

I'm going to watch Ken Burns.

[Maru Kitteh]

112. I don't think ANY representatives in govt are ENTITLED to a challenge-free environment.

In a DEMOCRACY, they must compete for those jobs. They should be competing more vigorously than they are currently. NONE of them should feel “safe.” Not one.

[Jbraybarten]

49. Wait, Jeffries (or others) is ordained? Nobody has the right to run? WTF. Weird indeed.

[QueerDuck]

68. Nice strawman. I never said anything about anyone's "right to run".

But, if you want to defend that, be my guest... you'll find no arguments or objections from me. Relying on such strenuous efforts actually reveals a position of weakness and arguments that are lacking. Feel free to waste your own time, not mine. I'll leave you to talk amongst yourself. Bye.

[aocommunalpunch]

92. Show your cards.

When is a primary okay with you?

[Scrivener7]

94. I read this and thought, "Good question!" But then I thought, "But who cares, really?"

Some guy on the internet has a problem with the American system.

Okay. Whatever.

[Jbraybarten]

91. Yep, straw man indeed. I guess you alternate that with your bringing pUrIty tEsTs

[DFW]

106. Everyone has the right to run.

No one said otherwise, just like common sense cannot be enforced in a court of law.

[Jbraybarten]

108. Ok, so saying that someone running in a primary...

Last edited Wed Nov 19, 2025, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

..is an "attack" on Democrats isn't suggesting that people shouldn't run? What kind of disingenuous crap is that?

[Cha]

7. I Hope Leader Hakeem Jeffries Wins...

"New Blood" means Nothing when up against Knowledge and Qualified Experience

[MichMan]

36. So, AOC should have never primaried Joe Crowley. right?

After all, she had never held elected office before, while he was a ten term incumbent and a Democratic Caucus chair.

[Cha]

37. This has Nothing to do with AOC... I'm talking

Last edited Tue Nov 18, 2025, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)

about Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

[QueerDuck]

47. Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic used to deflect criticism by responding with a counter-accusation...

or by raising an unrelated issue to change the subject. In my opinion, it reveals that the other person is making weak arguments, and they likely know it.

The primary goal is to shift focus away from the original difficult question to avoid accountability or to defend an idea or goal with questionable value or that has high-risk and very little (if any) gain.

So, instead of addressing the validity of the initial criticism, the person using whataboutism exaggerates a perceived flaw in their opponent or another party... or they'll often imply a moral equivalence between two different views, even if they are not truly comparable in context.

In the end, this weak tactic serves as a red herring, introducing an irrelevant topic to derail the conversation and "muddy the waters".

You handled this very well.

[MichMan]

48. I understood the poster's statement as a general opposition to any incumbent facing a primary challenge

"New Blood" means Nothing when up against Knowledge and Qualified Experience

It wasn't clear that it specifically applied only to Jeffries. The odd use of capitalization had me wondering if there was some hidden meaning.

.

[QueerDuck]

54. Thanks for checking in. I take well your point that...

in the whirlwind of a bustling forum, where words race like caffeinated squirrels, it’s all too easy to misinterpret a message or two. Clarity and precision often take a backseat, tossed aside like forgotten umbrellas in the rain, while the glittering jewels of spelling and proofreading are sacrificed on the altar of brevity and speed. It’s a chaotic ballet where meanings pirouette away, leaving us to grasp at the fleeting glimpses of intent.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

100. .

[Jbraybarten]

51. No, you got called out. Is it ok to run against incumbents or not. Period. FFS.

[QueerDuck]

55. A big LOL & a FFS back atcha! 😂🤣 🙄

These types of purity games do absolutely NOTHING to help us to regain the majority. A one-for-one swap that involves the real risk of giving a well-funded GOP challenger an advantage is simply not worth it. The virtue-signaling and purity tests are a luxury that we simply cannot afford. In this all-hands-on-deck moment... we need to be spending our time, energy and money toward the important mission of fighting AND REPLACING Republicans. It's simple math, FFS.

[Nixie]

59. Yup. When Trump says "the Democrats" and then you have those

who are running on a Democratic ticket also saying “the Democrats,” then we get the Trumpies. It’s not hard to remember how we got here.

[Scrivener7]

77. This is crazy. What do YOU call the Democrats? That's our name.

[Jbraybarten]

65. "bAcK aT yOu" Not a "pUrItY gAmE." No need to add straw men. Oof.

FFS.

[QueerDuck]

67. Yawn. 🥱

See ya later, alligator!

[Cha]

104. lol... yeah, It does get so

boring to try and debate Common Strategic Sense, Expert Knowledge, and Wanting to WIN VS only caring about "new blood" or whatever.

TY

[Jbraybarten]

87. Yawn indeed.

[Cha]

81. And, it Turns Out that AOC Doesn't want Osse,

either.

Exclusive: AOC says Chi Ossé primary challenge against Jeffries not a "good idea"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220813193

Thank You for Explaining the intricacies of "muddying the waters" so well yourself. After 23 years here it's not the fist time to run across it. Never works.

to you, Queer Duck

[QueerDuck]

86. I'm eager to hear the accusations that AOC is "against free elections" or claims that she...

has crossed-over to become "establishment" ... or insinuations that she views Jeffries as "royalty" ... or snide comments that she's a "neo-liberal." --- I swear, all the buzzwords and insults are flying at me fast and furious today... now that we know that AOC is in agreement, will she be swarmed too?

This will be interesting to watch.

[Cha]

89. Oh it's Ridiculous.. like anyone knows

more about what's going on in Congress than AOC and others who are Actually in there Every Day. Doing the Work

Maybe just Maybe they know Strategy Better?

[Celerity]

9. NY-08: Against Mamdani's Wishes, Gen Z Councilman Plans to Challenge Jeffries

h/t to RandySF

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220796693

Mr. Mamdani has privately tried to discourage his ideological ally from running. The mayor-elect and his team fear that another high-profile challenge from the left might compromise his own bid to push the Democratic establishment to support his affordability agenda.

Mr. Mamdani also may want to avoid the optics of having Mr. Ossé challenge the House Democratic leader, who endorsed Mr. Mamdani in October after months of negotiation.

The disagreement caused Mr. Ossé to be disinvited from Mr. Mamdani’s election night watch party, according to two people familiar with the matter, even though he has been a frequent presence at Mr. Mamdani’s campaign events. Instead, Mr. Ossé said he spent the night “with my constituents at D.S.A. events celebrating Zohran’s incredible win.”

[Autumn]

10. I think Mamdani is hoping for an endorsement from Jefferies. I don't think he needs it. nt

[Celerity]

14. Jeffries did endorse Mamdani, after months of meetings and foot-dragging

Hakeem Jeffries endorses Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor

US House minority leader ends four-month standoff over backing for Democratic nominee

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/24/zohran-mamdani-hakeem-jeffries-endorsement

The House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, endorsed Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor on Friday, ending a four-month standoff that left the Democratic nominee without the backing of one of the party’s most powerful figures until the day before early voting begins. The announcement arrives after months of pressure from progressives in Congress and after the top Democrat has been repeatedly grilled by reporters about his reluctance to support his party’s candidate. “Zohran Mamdani has relentlessly focused on addressing the affordability crisis and explicitly committed to being a mayor for all New Yorkers, including those who do not support his candidacy,” Jeffries wrote in a statement. “In that spirit, I support him and the entire citywide Democratic ticket in the general election.”

The Brooklyn representative’s delay has been particularly striking given that Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won the primary and Jeffries’s district decisively in June to defeat former governor Andrew Cuomo in what was considered a seismic upset. Jeffries’s endorsement makes the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, also of New York, the sole major Democratic congressional leadership holdout. The lack of earlier endorsements has not stopped the city’s magnetism for Mamdani, who maintains a commanding lead in polls for the 4 November general election, when he will face independent candidate Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

Jeffries’s extended hesitation stands in contrast with typical party unity timelines. The New York governor, Kathy Hochul, assembly speaker Carl Heastie and senate majority leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins all have endorsed Mamdani, as have the New York representatives Jerry Nadler, Adriano Espaillat and Yvette Clarke – each of whom backed other candidates in the primary. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Mamdani before the primary, and has campaigned with him since. The minority leader has spent months deflecting questions from reporters, repeatedly instructing the media to “stay tuned” while insisting he had not refused to endorse, just that he “refused to articulate” his position.

This hair-splitting did little to disguise what appeared to be profound discomfort with the 34-year-old democratic socialist whose upset primary victory upended the Democratic establishment’s expectations. When pressed by CNBC in August about the continued questioning on his Mamdani stance, a visibly frustrated Jeffries shot back: “I’m trying to understand why you would spend a significant amount of time asking me about the Democratic nominee who’s not even the mayor.” Jeffries, who raked in more than $1m from the pro-Israel lobby in 2023-2024, cited concerns about Mamdani’s past rhetoric on Israel and antisemitism, particularly the assembly member’s initial refusal to denounce the phrase “globalize the intifada”. Mamdani has also made the highly unlikely campaign promise to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he travels to New York.

snip

[W_HAMILTON]

15. What a biased portrayal.

Jeffries showed more support for Mamdani than he did the last Democrat running for NYC mayor, whom he NEVER endorsed.

Endorsements like his often wait till closer to the election to have more of an impact. I believe his came on the heels of early voting opening up.

Endorsing Mamdani in the summer would have accomplished nothing other than placating a certain segment of progressives about 12 hours before they found something else to hate on Jeffries for.

[SocialDemocrat61]

17. I've never seen an election

where people were so focused on endorsements. And those who are don't even live in NYC.

[QueerDuck]

18. It suggests a certain level of insecurity and weakness...

to be fixated on such things. IMHO

[SocialDemocrat61]

19. It's grievance shopping

to play the victim.

[Nixie]

53. Mamdani seems to understand this endorsement timing since he refused

to endorse Hochul even though she endorsed him.

[mcar]

24. Hakeem Jeffries will be a great speaker

We should be running against Republicans.

[dem4decades]

29. Pelosi was a great Speaker, she picked and mentored Jefferies, it is a stupid idea to vote out Jefferies.

[Dorian Gray]

33. especially for his district

[Cha]

38. And, Pres Obama.... I remember him

saying That.. a lot.

I say it too.... only the Come on!

[OAITW r.2.0]

35. I'll pass on this primary.

Bet Republicans will finance this campaign.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

99. Bingo

[Halicarnassus]

58. He'll get thumped.

You think the people of NY-8 are going to get rid of the next likely Speaker of the House?

But it’s great all these progressives keep running against strong, unbeatable Democratic incumbents, it’s not a waste of time, money, and resources at all.🙄

[Deminpenn]

61. He will, but it he pushes Jeffries to the left, that's fine

with me.

[Halicarnassus]

80. Respectfully disagree.

Pelosi dropped her pretty lefty politics when she became Speaker to shift to the role of leader. It was a lot less ideological and political. Much more behind the scenes, and interactive. It’s a different beast, being a congressional leader. See: my dude, Lyndon Johnson.

[Torchlight]

82. I don't see this moving any needles one way or the other

Another name lost to fog after another primary ends.

[MichMan]

83. I recall when David Hogg was a vice chair of the DNC, he was advocating primary challenges to quite a few incumbents.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

98. Seems like most folks in favor of primarying Jeffries

don't know much about Chi Ossé, just that he's "new blood."

Sure, let's chuck the House minority leader for...a NYC council member just cuz he's new.

Couldn't Ossé get some experience before jumping in? It takes more than ideas and a "Democratic Socialist" label to be a successful politician.

[DFW]

107. I regret....

…..that I have but one rec to give for your post.

(Apologies to Patrick Henry)

[betsuni]

110. Only young new blood morally pure righteous grassroots anti-establishment Outsiders can rescue The Will of the People

from the fictional Democrat-monsters. That's the brand being advertised.

[RandySF]

101. I don't care who runs but

I hope it doesn’t get ugly.

[Halicarnassus]

103. Lotta comments

in what will ultimately be a completely irrelevant primary.

Your Democratic member of Congress is so close to being the next Speaker. Third in line to the presidency, overseer of half the legislative branch.

Do you…
(A) excitedly vote for them once more?
(B) vote for some no-name socialist who has no chance, and won’t even be a footnote in history?

That’s what I thought.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

109. Instead of running against Jefferies

He should be running in a district that currently is represented by a Repub, that way we could pick up a seat.

[Samael13]

111. This thread saddens me a bit.

First off let me say I like Jeffries and hope to see him be our speaker. I'd also prefer Ossé try to flip a republican seat. But this idea that anyone is above being primaried is ludicrous. I truly wish it was mandatory that every elected official face a primary challenger each election. Its doubtful Jeffries will lose the primary but lets argue his district no longer wants him to represent them I'd rather see them get behind another democrat instead of just not voting or voting for a republican or splitting the vote.

[Autumn]

113. Chi Osse has every right to launch a primary challenge against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

That is how our system works. No one in any party is owed a seat and winning a seat in Congress does not mean anyone is entitled to a lifetime career . If he gets the votes good for him, if not Jefferies remains