WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2026
All in all, Look who's talking: On Election Day in Gotham, Emily Compagno, co-hosting The Five, was visibly upset.
Mayor Mamdani had endorsed three candidates for the House in that day's Democratic Party primaries. On the "cable news" show which defines the shape of our failed state, Compagno assessed the three candidates thusly:
COMPAGNO (6/23/26): Yeah, I'm horrified by this. I'm horrified! When did the Democrat [sic] Party normalize monsters like these?
Compagno linked her use of the term "monsters" to an earlier use of the word by Mamdani himself. But as her assessment unfolded, the excitable co-host blazed a trail to her own linguistic frontier:
COMPAGNO: There is no gray area here, in my opinion. It's pretty obvious that these candidates are absolutely disqualified to even run. And yet somehow, they're being celebrated, and then endorsed, by our super-smiley, annoying mayor.
These people are pro-defund the police. Every deportation is an abomination. They are against prison altogether. They are against everything that makes a society run, and they continue to display such juvenile comments and tendencies in policies like [mocking tone] "free buses" and "free houses."
[...]
This city is going to Hell in a handbasket because of this mayor and I do not understand... why he is bothering to endorse all of these psychopaths instead of saying, "You know what? I'm in the office. I'm going to sit this one out," as he should.
I hope there's more national leadership that comes out and says all of these people are tragically unqualified and disqualified...
Right there, on primary Election Day, so Compagno said. The three candidates weren't just "monsters." They were also "psychopaths," the horrified co-host said.
(For the record, we have a bunch of free bus lines in Baltimore. For full exposure, click here.)
More to the point, were the three candidates all just alike? Setting the "psychopath" claim to the side, were all three "tragically unqualified?"
We're willing to venture a no.
As we noted yesterday, one of the three was Brad Lander, the former comptroller of the city of New York. Before being elected citywide to that position, he'd been elected to three terms on the Gotham City Council, serving from 2010 through 2021.
In June 2025, the New York Times Opinion Panel (a group of Gotham residents) made him their choice to be the city's next mayor. The Times explained his selection thusly:
OPINION
Who Should Lead New York City?
15 New Yorkers assess the candidates for the Democratic mayoral primary
[...]
In the end, a veteran civic leader and elected official, Brad Lander, the city comptroller, emerged as the top overall choice among the panelists, including four who recently shifted away from Mr. Cuomo, Mr. Mamdani and other candidates. Mr. Lander was also cited as best on education, the economy and leadership. Those who favored him cited his experience in city government and his ability to work with others—but, truth be told, he also benefited from lacking the heavy baggage of Mr. Cuomo and the democratic socialist image of Mr. Mamdani. Danny Meyer, the restaurateur, spoke for others in our group when he said of Mr. Lander, “He understands the complexity of how the city works, what our city government does and what it can and cannot do.”
Depending on your policy views, he may not be your cup of tea. No candidate is ever the everyone's choice.
No one is ever everyone's choice! But is Lander "tragically unqualified" even to seek a seat in the House?
We're going to venture a no. Meanwhile, does Lander hold the beliefs the three "monsters" were said to share? Is Lander "against prison altogether," to cite one example?
This being The Five, no evidence was ever given in support of Compagno's assertions. Given the way the game is played by reliable messaging agents like Compagno, we know of no reason to place any faith in anything she ever says.
Further thoughts on Compagno below. Earlier in the segment that day, Jessica Tarlov had offered a saner assessment of the three nominees in question.
As we've frequently noted, Tarlov is the designated punching bag on this ersatz "cable news" show. Compagno screeches and Greg Gutfeld offers towel-snapping jokes, as he inanely did in this very segment about "a Muslim Santa" flying his sled into the chimneys of houses.
By way of contrast, Tarlov tends to operate in conventional ways when she co-hosts the show, until she's interrupted and overtalked by guardians of the corporate line like Gutfeld and Jesse Watters.
Uh-oh! According to Tarlov, the three Mamdani-endorsed nominees actually aren't all alike! Regarding the three alleged psychopaths, the lone liberal co-host said this:
TARLOV (6/23/26): I think that there is a big difference between, for instance, Claire Valdez, who you played the original clip of, and then Darializa [Avila] Chevalier, who is challenging Espaillat in New York 13.
I mean, she is dangerous [notable pause] and seems pretty dumb also. And I don't know why Mamdani would waste capital on that.
Tarlov didn't mention the highly experienced Lander. She said there was a significant difference between Avila Chevalia and Claire Valdez, the other two candidates.
Avila Chevalier is "dangerous," Tarlov said. Unless she meant dangerous to Democratic Party interests, we don't know why she said that.
After a pause, she also said that Avila Chevalier "seems pretty dumb." We wouldn't use that term in this context ourselves, but in her June 24 column for the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg sketched the shape of the possible problem:
Democrats Are Done With Caution
Of the three New York City congressional candidates endorsed by Zohran Mamdani in Tuesday’s primary, Darializa Avila Chevalier was the weakest.
A sociology Ph.D. student and doctrinaire leftist who has never held elected office, she was running against Adriano Espaillat, head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus...
Last week, in an interview with the New York Editorial Board, a group of veteran journalists who question local political and civic leaders, Avila Chevalier said she opposed all deportations, even those of violent criminals. A prison abolitionist, she either couldn’t or wouldn’t answer repeated questions about whether murderers should be incarcerated...In [several] since-deleted tweets, Avila Chevalier cursed at Kamala Harris, called Joe Biden a “rapist” and derided his support for Ukraine as “bullying Russia.” Her name was notably absent from a get-out-the-vote message that Bernie Sanders posted for other progressives on Tuesday.
But in the end, Avila Chevalier won, carried to a narrow victory by the left-wing tsunami that created landslides for the other congressional candidates Mamdani endorsed, Brad Lander and Claire Valdez. She will almost certainly become the most left-wing member of Congress, and Republicans are sure to try to make her the face of the Democratic Party.
Like Tarlov, Goldberg said that Mamdani's three nominees simply aren't all alike.
As she continued, she said "the Democratic version of the Tea Party is here." Avila Chevalier was offered as the poster child for this potentially (politically) dangerous set of unconventional candidates.
Goldberg's assessment was the work of a qualified journalist—of a person who is able to draw the most obvious sorts of distinctions between as many as three different people. Compagno's rather typical rant seemed more like the work of someone who shouldn't be on the nation's most watched "cable news" program--someone who may not be "qualified" to be cast in such a position.
It flies in the face of American instinct to say that someone is unqualified to offer a political assessment or opinion. Borrowing from President Kennedy in Berlin, we would say this:
Let the person who feels that way watch some programs on the Fox News Channel!
That person will see the intellectual squalor which arises when people like Compagno, Watters and Gutfeld are hired by a corporate empire, then are deployed for the purpose of advancing an endless array of corporate propaganda messages.
Within the context of American politics, there seem to be few unlikely statements Avila Chevalier hasn't made. Within the context of American pseudo-journalism, the same could be saif of a person like Compagno—or of an apparent nutcase like Jesse Watters, who still seemed to think, as of June 24, that Mayor Mamdani's three "Commie" nominees were, in fact, all women.
A nation which tolerates staffing like this may already be a failed state. As in The Sixth Sense, so too here, with us:
It's possible that we the people simply don't know that the American project is already dead.
That said, were Compagno's various claims really true? Do all three "monstera" and "psychopaths" hold the outlandish views she attributed to them in her latest angry rant?
What do the nominees think and believe? Just how crazy are their beliefs?
Tomorrow, we'll note what happened when Claire Valdez was interviewed by Erin Burnett, right there on CNN.
Tomorrow: Medicare for All—even that!
These people are pro-defund the police. COMPAGNO
ReplyDeleteCompagno literally voted for the man who unleashed an attack on our Capital building and campaigned on pardoning the people who assaulted police protecting the capital. And then he fucking did it on Day 1 and she never blinked. Why the fuck should I care what she says?!
anon 11:12, you don't have to.
DeleteAC/MA, Somerby asks his readers to care what Compagno says. The commenter is responding to that.
DeleteAgain, do you only come here to attack other commenters? You either needs some ideas or a better hobby.
If you support Trump, you have lost the right to call any other politician a "monster," without being laughed out of all rational discourse as a buffoon. But we don't have rational discourse. We have a press corps dedicated to maintaining drama to keep the ad dollars rolling in, so a politician who advocates Medicare for all or some kind of just resolution in Palestine becomes just as "monstrous" as one who wants armed soldiers roaming our streets, naked corruption throughout the government, to cancel elections that look bad for them, launching insane wars, alienating decades-long allies and trading partners, and on, and on, and on. That's what people get on our media -- and it shows in what America has become.
ReplyDelete"Hispanic naming customs use two surnames (apellidos) to honor both parental lineages. Individuals inherit the first surname of their father followed by the first surname of their mother. Women do not traditionally change their names upon marriage, and there is no concept of a "middle name"."
ReplyDelete"and then Darializa [Avila] Chevalier, " Tarlov says.
Somerby correctly inserts the father's surname "Avila" to complete Chevalier's name. Tarlov's omission of one surname shows additional disrespect, beyond the words she uses to disparage Avila Chevalier. That is the same kind of cheap shot as when Republicans pretend they cannot pronounce Kamala.
The second surname is optional. It was OK to say Fidel Castro Ruz, but it was also OK to say Fidel Castro.
DeleteYes, but it was the first surname that was omitted, not the second one. That would make Castro "Fidel Ruz". Her Hispanic constituents will like it when she uses both surnames because it reflects cultural practice. Those who dislike immigrants will deliberately screw it up.
DeleteI know I always enjoy it when Randy Rainbow calls our president Donald Jessica Trump. It would be OK with me if they just called him Donald Jessica, but how would the right feel about it?
"Like Tarlov, Goldberg said that Mamdani's three nominees simply aren't all alike."
ReplyDeleteSomerby is being excessively literal. They are all three alike in that Mamdani endorsed them. That doesn't mean they are necessarily alike in other ways. They are being lumped together so that Republicans can attack them as a group.
They have become the new "Squad," which, while it still exists, hasn't been much of a target of the right wing hysteria machine lately.
DeleteAvila Chevalier defeated a 5-term Democratic incumbent in her race. Many Democrats are upset that the Democrats in Congress have been so ineffective in controlling Trump and opposing the Republicans in the House. Further, there is a movement toward younger candidates, based on the "Biden is too old" campaign in 2024.
ReplyDeleteGiven Somerby's very aggressive "Biden is too old" essays, it seems hypocritcal for him to now complain that some of the younger candidates beating incumbents in these primaries are more progressive and more extreme than those they are replacing. You can't have things both ways.
Avila Chevalier seems to have been especially anti-Biden in 2020 and, like other progressives, tried to defeat him by supporting Tara Reide, who claimed Biden sexually assaulted her by rubbing her thigh. That was exaggerated to a claim he raped her. As it turns out after investigation, he did neither. Harris never accused Biden of rape and never supported Tara Reide, although the right wing claimed she did. In context, Avila Chevalier's remarks are like those Somerby has been making about Trump being mentally ill, unsupported. It is to her credit that she retracted the claims after Biden won the nomination.
Tarlov focuses on her other progressive positions regarding immigrants and police. Somerby has said he agreed with Tarlov, but today he doesn't say what he agrees with her about. I think Tarlov is mischaracterizing Avila Chevalier's views, so it matters what Somerby agrees with specifically.
Tarlov objects that Avila Chevalier will become the face of the Democratic party. Of course she will, but right wingers will lie about Democrat positions if they don't find their actual views extreme enough, and there is not much that is more extreme than calling people monsters and psychopaths. Tarlov doesn't help Democrats when she joins her co-hosts in demonizing any of the primary winners. This careful attempt to cut-out the reasonable ones from Avila Chevalier, who won her district race, is ugly and not the way Democrats should be treating each other. We do not need a deeper division between progressive and moderate Democrats, so neither Somerby nor Tarlov is helping Democrats at a time when we desperately need to get rid of House Republicans, especially Trump supporters.
Tarlov complains that Avila Chevalier will be targeted, but that will make her like AOC, who is now a positive and outspoken leader coming into her own. When first elected, AOC was stigmatized just as Avila Chevalier is being (by her own party!). For Avila Chevalier to win at all, she must have gained a following as an activist and earned her place on the ticket. We Democrats should be teaching and encouraging her, not trying to help Republican gain her district's seat.
Being on Fox too much may be affecting Tarlov's views. Somerby is no friend to Democrats, so his agreement with Tarlov as she drifts rightward is no surprise.
Compagno is trying to talk like a New Yorker and she does live in NYC now, but she was born and grew up as a west coast Italian American in the Bay area, attending law school at San Francisco University. She has no clue about NYC politics, especially at the local level.
ReplyDeleteShe’s a carpet bagger.
DeleteShe moved to NYC in 2020 but pretends she is a New Yorker like Fran Lebowitz.
Delete"Within the context of American politics, there seem to be few unlikely statements Avila Chevalier hasn't made. "
ReplyDeleteThis sentence is pure Somerby. Calling controversial remarks "unlikely" is his indirect and misleading way of calling her extremist or out of step or whatever he actually means. Unlikely means improbably, and progressives may be calling for unrealistic change, but there is nothing improbable about progressives being progressive. It seems to me that Avila Chevalier was saying the same things in 2020 as other Social Democrats and progressives who favored other candidates than Biden (who was definitely moderate, despite being the most pro-union, pro-worker, and effective president since FDR). There is also no doubt that progressives helped defeat Harris, who lost by a tiny amount that could have been made up with more progressive support. Bernie Sanders played that same spoiler role with Hillary.
We need progressives now if we are to change the composition of Congress and prosecute Trump for his crimes. That means even dainty so-called liberals such as Somerby need to close ranks behind ALL of our Democratic candidates to retake the House and Senate majorities. We won't get that result if Somerby and other assholes decide progressives don't belong in office. Avila Chevalier's views will moderate because extreme views must survive majority votes to pass bills in Congress. She will be a good influence on others and join in passing what needs to happen in the next two years, before we can again elect a Democratic president.
It strikes me as pretty dumb to call someone working on a sociology doctorate "pretty dumb."
ReplyDeleteAvila Chevalier ran in a district that is 50% Hispanic, 25% black and 15% white, working class and gentrifying, with 30%+ foreign born (immigrant). The person she defeated was head of the Hispanic caucus, but both candidates are Hispanic.
Making anti-deportation statements is going to go over well with her constituents, if not with Tarlov herself (and certainly not with Somerby). Whatever Tarlov considered dumb, it wouldn't be that statement. Being against detention would also be a hit, not a miss. Her opponent could have run on her record if she had anything to show for her 5 terms. Angry people want change and Avila Chevalier represents change. Espaillat was a strong supporter of Joe Biden. That would have been good for me, but may have hurt her with NYC voters, given the way so many Democrats turned on Biden. I agree that was unfair to Biden and perhaps Espaillat, but Somerby cannot attack Biden as he did and then mourn the loss by a strong Biden-supporter yesterday, because people like Somerby contributed to her loss.
No one can look at the huge pile of money given to DHS and ICE and not feel that those guys need defunding.
ReplyDeleteMeidas Touch podcast is discussing the fact that multi-million $ contracts for tasers and body cameras were given to a firm that Trump just bought stock in right before the contract was awarded.
The Right, and their mouthpieces in the press, made the moderate, Centrist "De-fund the police" position sound radical and extreme.
DeleteThe idea that Pretti and Good shouldn't have been shot is not an extreme position, in my opinion. It is one of the things Avila Chevalier said. I've never heard Somerby say it though. If Somerby were running against Avila Chevalier, I would say Somerby is too old and enthusiastically campaign for Avila Chevalier because at least she expresses her views directly and hold opinions that don't include the words "possibly" "seems" "improbably" "anything is possible". It is refreshing when candidates don't use weasel words. Somerby would never run for anything. He could never find an opinion before the time period expired to cast a vote.
DeleteI’ll say it: Pretti and Good should not have been shot.
DeleteThe "moderate, centrist" faction that used the slogan set themselves up for this, as they have with other in-your-face name choices, like "Democratic Socialists." Oftentimes, it seems the goal is less to enact meaningful policy changes, and more to shock for the sake of shocking and differentiating themselves, like an adolescent dying their hair blue. I think it was 10 years ago when I first saw the word "woke" being used, and it was obvious to me then it would quickly be used as a lever to mock the entire left. The problem is nobody is in charge of messaging on the left, so the loudest, most angry -- and usually thoughtless -- people end up looking like, or being made to look like, they speak for the entire movement, when they don't.
DeleteYes, they have said this about nearly all lefty innovations, including feminism and being gay. And the right will mock anything identified with the left, because that is what they do. It doesn't mean we cannot use the name "Democratic Socialist" as an accurate descriptor for political views. It is OK for us to "own" the word Socialist, as other countries do.
DeleteWe should not be letting the right decide on our messaging. I think the problem is that we on the left do not defend our own. Instead of circling the wagons when someone lefty is attacked, we form a circular firing squad and join the right in its attack. We need to learn to defend people because they are left, whether we fully agree or not, because those who are attacking us are worse and DO NOT HAVE AN ACTUAL POINT. What is worse about Democratic Socialist, compared to "monsters and psychopaths"?
We need to speak up for each other, and it is OK to do that, even if it requires a qualifying phrase such as "while I don't fully agree with everything Hillary has said, I think she is the best person for the job and I doubt she would mess up health care, no matter how she designs a new healthcare for all program." If we broaden our movement, we won't need to be so picky about who speaks for us.
"A nation which tolerates staffing like this may already be a failed state."
ReplyDeleteThis sentence occurs directly beneath a discussion of Fox co-hosts, so perhaps it refers to Fox News staffing, but the larger article is about the three candidates who won their primaries on Tuesday, beging maligned by Fox.
Somerby's sentence makes no sense because we the people do not have any voice in Fox News staffing. But we DO have a voice in electing officials to serve in Congress. If Somerby is claiming, very obliquely, that these three candidates are unsuited to hold office, he needs to say so directly, not pretend he is referring to Watters while hinting that Democrats don't deserve to be elected.
How would anything Fox News does reflect on our nation state? That is private enterprise governed by free speech, a corporation, not anything to do with elections or the people of our state. Yet that is how Somerby concludes his essay. I, for one, do not tolerate Gutfeld or Watters or Compagno or Tarlov, or Somerby either. The fate of our nation does not depend on what Fox News says and does. It rests on the viewers and what we do at the polls as we cast our votes.
I am pleased that three progressives endorsed by Mamdani won their primaries. I am pleased that New Yorkers were involved enough to express a strong preference for someone other than incumbents. That shows a healthy democracy, one where people think about the choices and do something about them. That is partly why experts are predicting a blue wave in November -- because people are coming out for the primaries, and they are pissed at the status quo (which is Trump and his buddies).
If Somerby's weird reference about tolerating "staffing like this" is about the three who won their elections on Tuesday, and not about Gutfeld et al., then Somerby has his head up his ass. There is no reason why ALL THREE of the people elected shouldn't have the chance to defeat their Republican opponents in November. In fact, it is hard to imagine any Republican who could satisfy the needs of the district where Avila Chevalier won, given its demographics.
Democratic politicians often introduce Medicare for All bills but do little to actively organize or campaign for them. They are too beholden to the private insurance system.
ReplyDeleteNihilistic doom-saying again. The more you try to pass such bills, the sooner the day comes when one can be enacted, as occurred with other programs. Incrementalism works but giving up in advance always fails.
DeleteRepublican voters are their constituents, too, 2:52.
DeleteFREE FREE PALESTINE
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty clear that neither Somerby nor Tarlov like Avila Chevalier. Tarlov is more open about it than Somerby, who vaguely says he agrees with something Tarlov said, but then doesn't clarify which parts of her discussion he agrees with. As expected, Somerby remains murky. Why? It isn't as if he has any liberal cred here. But it does seem weird that a guy who once claimed to prefer Bernie Sanders as a candidate, now wants to push out a progressive candidate, especially one who expresses his own aversion to Biden. What's that all about?
ReplyDeleteSomerby is the guy who was willing to forgive Rittenhouse's youthful inexperience when he shot and killed several protesters in Kenosha. All Avila Chevalier did was express the Social Democrat and progressive party line in 2020.
Pretty plainly, this is about denigrating Social Democrats not anything this specific candidate said that was ill advised. That may be why Somerby is hiding what she said that he thinks was so objectionable. Somerby is joining Republicans today, furthering their talking point that the Democrats elected are just too extreme, as if any kind of Democrat is OK with the right. And Somerby is right there with the right, pushing the line that some Democrats really are just too too extreme to be allowed to run (as if the choice did not depend on the voters).
There is no way Somerby can work against the interests of the Democratic party and still pretend to be a Democrat himself, when he wants to bash Social Democrats (who are, after all, still Democrats). Somerby is all-in on anything that will divide Democrats in November, so he is all over Tarlov's righty dislike of a candidate she (and the Republicans) consider just too left wing for America. Tarlov is not a moderate, she is a party-traitor, and so is Somerby. That is their right in a free country, but it doesn't allow them to take any bows when it comes to trying to win the next elections.
These three democrats are monsters because they don’t respect Israel’s God-given right to perpetrate genocide.
ReplyDeleteHere is how you might have said this in a less provocative way: "These three Democrats are being targeted for their views on the Middle East." Given that Somerby has expressed next to no views on Israel or genocide, I doubt that is why he dislikes Avila Chevalier. The other two seem to be A-OK with him, so it seems it is the right on Fox that is targeting them as monsters. Are you sure it is only Israel that they are concerned about, and not the COMMUNISM?
DeleteSomerby just went to great lengths to show that the three monsters have DIFFERENT views from each other, including no doubt on Israel. Trolls should read the essays they are commenting on, but I realize they may not have the time to fully pretend to be readers of each blog.
Delete