By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a controversial turn of events, New York City Council member Chi Ossé will not challenge Representative Hakeem Jeffries in the 2026 Democratic primary, despite earlier considerations and the support of some. This decision followed intervention from Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, influencing a narrow vote against Ossé’s candidacy at a Democratic Socialists of America forum. The article argues that Jeffries is a weak leader with problematic stances on key issues and a record of suppressing socialist candidates, and that the lack of a primary challenge will be to the detriment of the public. Ultimately, the article posits that even if a challenger is not victorious, a primary election is a valuable exercise for socialists.
Read the original article here
Of course the left should primary Hakeem Jeffries. The calls for it are loud and clear, echoing a sentiment that stretches beyond just one individual. The idea of holding every politician accountable through primaries, regardless of party affiliation, is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. It’s about ensuring representation and responsiveness, and that’s precisely why Jeffries, like many others, should face the scrutiny of a primary challenge.
Primarying someone like Hakeem Jeffries sends a clear message. It’s a statement that the party’s direction needs reevaluation. It’s a demand for action, for a stronger stance against issues like rising costs and a more forceful opposition to those who would undermine democratic principles. When opportunities arise, like the recent instance of Trump’s comments on affordability, the perceived inaction is disheartening. The expectation, and the right to expect it, is that elected officials will seize these moments to advocate for their constituents.
The criticisms aimed at Jeffries paint a picture of someone out of touch. His perceived lack of dynamism and a failure to project the kind of leadership that inspires confidence are significant points of concern. These are not merely aesthetic issues. They reflect on the ability to lead, to galvanize, and to effectively represent the values of the constituency. In a time where clear, decisive leadership is needed, the perception of passivity is simply unacceptable.
The conversation about ICE and the focus on core issues, or lack thereof, highlights another crucial aspect. The left is seeking outspoken advocates for their stances. It’s about holding representatives accountable for their promises and their priorities. The primary process provides a way to express this. It’s a method for the electorate to influence the direction of their party, pushing it to be more responsive to the needs and values of the people.
The historical context of political maneuvering also surfaces. The timing of support for candidates, and the strategic calculations involved, are elements that contribute to the debate. This reveals an undercurrent of skepticism, a feeling that those in power are not always acting in the best interests of their constituents. The primary process provides the necessary means to change the trajectory.
The argument for primaries is not about causing division; it’s about making the party better. The criticism directed towards Jeffries is less about personal animus and more about a desire for stronger leadership, increased accountability, and a more progressive agenda. The act of holding a primary, even if the outcome seems predetermined, is still beneficial. It allows for a vital assessment of the party’s values.
Campaign finance is part of the problem. It is imperative that the playing field be leveled. Everyone, regardless of resources, should have the opportunity to represent their district. The current system, where money often dictates who can even enter the race, must be challenged. It’s not about socialism; it’s about fairness and allowing the best candidates to emerge.
The primary process is not about ideological purity. It’s about getting Democrats elected. It’s a strategic move to secure a lasting majority and ensure that the voices of the people are heard and acted upon. The immediate goal is to win, but the long-term goal is to build a better government, one that is responsive to the needs of the people. This is achieved, in part, by pushing the party to be more progressive.
Hakeem Jeffries’ potential failings are significant. From the lack of support for specific policies, to his charisma, to his public profile, there are several things that his constituents may not love. A primary is a chance to rectify that. It gives the electorate a chance to reassess, to hold their representatives accountable, and to demand that the party and its leaders reflect the true values of the people they claim to serve. The call for a primary isn’t about destruction; it’s about holding power accountable and pushing for positive change.