The Debate Over DFNYC's Connor-Squadron Non-Endorsement

Democracy for New York City’s decision to endorse neither State Senator Marty Connor nor his challenger--former Chuck Schumer aide Dan Squadron--has sparked an interesting debate among some stalwarts of the progressive Democratic community.

(It should be noted how the decision came about: neither Connor nor Squadron got 60 percent of votes from DFNYC voting members.)

Michael Bouldin, who blogs regularly on Daily Gotham, says that Connor isn't all that bad, but takes a throw-the-bums-out view of the need to replace him:

“We need, as a state, to infuse fresh blood into both chambers of the legislature; Dan Squadron's campaign could be the first ripple of a wave of new fresh faces who are suddenly considering public service.”

Dan Jacoby, who moderated a debate between the two candidates, makes a detailed argument in defense of Connor, cites some of Squadron’s remarks during the debate and concludes that his words “smacked of the kind of phony politics that we despise.” (The use of "we" here refers to progressive Democrats.)

I have video of the whole debate here.

Phil Anderson, who blogs at The Albany Project and actively campaigns for progressive Democrats around the state, wrote that he’s “truly baffled” by the group’s decision not to endorse Squadron.

I took a look at DFNYC earlier and found that they are still looking for a major win against the Democratic establishment.