new york city, new jersey state and virginia state are races that the democrats should take for granted and, in new york city, both of the candidates were democrats. i understand that democrats want a reason to get drunk, but this is about as flimsy a reason to start chugging as i could imagine.

democrats also won in detroit, which was a shift from an independent, who had been mayor for ten years and is running for governor. they also held mayors in seattle, pittsburgh, buffalo, minneapolis, new orleans, boston and elsewhere.

the most notable actual win for the democrats on the 4th was the city of omaha, nebraska. does that suggest farmers and the region are pissed off by the tariffs? it might. i'd keep an eye on that.

functionally, the elections provide no information about demographics in upstate new york, in the rust belt or in the great lakes areas, outside the urban centres. they consequently provide no information about upcoming elections in existing swing districts or potential swing districts.

democrats should enjoy their beer and take whatever justification they need to get drunk, but not get too giddy, as there is no good news in the data. if anything, the fact that electing mamdani is clearly a swing to the right in new york city should be a little bit alarming. cuomo was certainly the more left-wing candidate of the two. but, then again, new york city democrats have always been upper class "liberal republicans" and not really representative of democrats in the rest of the country.

keep an eye on nebraska. there's maybe a story there.

there's no story in the bos-wash except the long evasive excuse for democrats to get drunk.