Nadler Declares Victory in Congressional Primary, But Thousands of Ballots Still to be Counted


L to R: Jonathan Herzog, Lindsey Boylan, and Rep. Jerry Nadler.

Rep. Jerry Nadler declared victory in the primary election for the 10th congressional district, but the announcement may be premature.

Nadler is certainly winning by a lot over opponents Lindsey Boylan and Jonathan Herzog, but City & State points out that as much as two-thirds of the vote may not have been counted yet because of absentee ballots.

With nearly all of the scanners in the district reported, Nadler has garnered 61.6% of the vote, according to the NYC Board of Elections.

People who got absentee ballots had until June 23 to get them postmarked and they will be counted up until June 30.

One positive note from this otherwise strange and complicated pandemic-era election — most news sources actually waited to call races, unlike the traditional practice of calling them based on projections or exit polls with only 1% of precincts reporting.

It’s okay to let the actual votes come in before calling everything! We all have to listen to election coverage and pontification for months. Give the voters a few hours — or even days — to control the narrative. (Okay, rant over.)

NEWS | 38 comments | permalink
    1. Pam says:

      Nadler again. What is wrong with you people. He is part of the problem.

      • A. Realist says:

        Exactly WHAT problem is Rep. Nadler “part of”??

        Mr. Nadler, who has served 15 terms in the House of Representatives, has not only consistently supported progressive causes but also has been a leader in the attempt to impeach this horrible president (foiled, of course, by McConnell etc.).

        Rep. Nadler is a centrist-Democrat, which may account for his long career, and NOT a radical-sounding uber-liberal like Senators Sanders and Warren (whose too-left-of-center ideas turned-off the mainstream Democrats in the primaries.

        B/T/W: Don’t want to vote for Biden? How does a 2nd term for Trump sound?

      • Woody says:

        I don’t like Nadler either but I prefer him over his two opponents.

        We don’t need an AOC type representing us.

      • Ryan says:

        Well, 40% of people do NOT want Nadler. A pretty close race for someone’s who has run uncontested in all but a few of his 15 election cycles.

        However, with the challengers splitting the vote it makes it near impossible to topple an incumbent.

        Rank choice voting. We need to stop this binary yes/no, him/her, red/blue choice. Voting has become more about who you think will win rather than who you actually support.

    2. Hyman Rosen says:

      Math is not interested in your whining. Math can predict outcomes from only a small percentage of counted votes.

      • Cato says:

        So then why bother voting at all? Let’s just let the predictors tell us who would have won and save all the expense and bother of running voting places.

        In the same vein, be sure to see “Minority Report” before it leaves Netflix. Let’s arrest the perpetrator *before* he commits the crime — we’ve already predicted that he will.

    3. Sid says:

      The snarky twittering from the Rag neglects how projections and vote-counting works, and simplifies the process and how they expect it works. Stick to news unless you want to publish clearly opinionated pieces (all feelings and no facts). Sadly I doubt the Rag will publish this, as they never publish any valid criticisms, but I hope an editor reads this and does some research. (This comment is civil, under 100 characters and follows the community guidelines!)

    4. Leon says:

      November is going to be absolutely miserable while we wait for absentee ballots to be counted for the presidential election…

      Though the good news is that at least I will hopefully be able to sleep on election day, unlike in 2016 when I stayed up to hear the final results then couldn’t sleep as I had a panic attack about what the next four years would be like. And it has been worse than I expected…

    5. chris says:

      Not sure about the rest of the 10th Congressional District but I don’t feel too many on the UWS are looking for another AOC so Nadler it is.

      • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

        There is so much trashing of AOC in the WSR comments! Please note that her district re-elected her with close to 75% of the vote; she had broad popularity in all geographic sections and among all racial/ethnic groups. Her opponent was well funded by people from the financial services industry and claimed, similar to some on this site, that AOC is “unpopular” and “divisive.” Oh well. No one gets 100% but 75% is pretty darn good. She must be doing something right.

        PS I proudly voted for Jerry Nadler; Lindsay Boylan was a phony progressive.

        • Bob Lamm says:

          Thank you, Bruce. For Lindsay Boylan to say that Nadler wasn’t a progressive was a joke.

        • KMdude says:

          Radical chic is easy when you live on the UWS. I don’t see too many people who look like AOC or her constituents living in your neighborhood.

        • JSN says:

          Totally agree with you on all points. Boylan is no progressive and Herzog’s CV was thin.

        • LongtimeNYer says:

          There’s big difference (thank goodness) between the UWS and AOC’s district. I can see why her constituents may have voted for her and UWSers wouldn’t.

      • Sid says:

        AOC endorsed Nadler!

    6. m.pipik says:

      To all of you people who don’t quite get how Congress works:

      Seniority counts for assignments to committees especially as heads of Committees. Yes, the Republicans are not as strict about it as the Democrats, but newbie representatives & senators are not going to get those jobs.

      As we have seen, it matters who is in and runs those Committees which is where things get done.

      You want to have senior people who will get to head the important committees. You also want people who have experience with the issues that are in play.

      By getting rid of senior legislators you party gives up POWER and knowledge.

      As the old saying goes “Be careful what you wish for.”

      • tailfins says:

        Perhaps seniority and the “old boys network” (because that’s what it really is) are part of the problem.

        That said, AOC seemed pretty influential in her first term. I certainly heard more about her policy proposals than I ever had from Joe Crowley.

        • m.pipik says:

          She can propose all she want but what counts is getting legislation passed (cf. B. Sanders). It helps to avoid demonizing people from the other party who might be willing to work with you. Demonizing them will be a guarantee that they won’t cross the aisle and help you.

          • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

            Replying to M. Pipik:

            You repeat the old myth that Bernie Sanders doesn’t get any legislation passed. That is the same thing Lindsay Boylan said about Nadler! (A lie.) I suggest you go to the RYan Community Health Center on the UWS and ask them about Bernie’s many billions of funding for Community Health Centers. Or you talk to some doctors or nurses who get federal loan repayments through National Health Service Corps (Bernie Sanders.) Or maybe you know someone unemployed right now who is getting the $600 per week supplemental unemployment insurance. Thank you Bernie Sanders.

            Can I ask who from “the other party” AOC demonized? It seems like Trump and the Republicans spend a lot of time demonizing her and her allies.

      • Eric says:

        This lack of strategic thinking will be undercutting Democratic leadership in Congress for years to come.

        Jamaal Bowman is a perfect example. Young, idealistic. Perfect no? … on the night of the election Bowman said in a speech “Eliot Engel — and I’ll say his name once — used to say he was a thorn in the side of Donald Trump,” “You know what Donald Trump is more afraid of than anything else? A Black man with power. That is what Donald Trump is afraid of.”

        Perhaps, except that Bowman will be a congressman with absolutely NO power. Congratulations 16th Congressional District, you traded away the New York delegation’s chairman of a powerful committee for a very well-intentioned junior NOBODY.

        Similarly, AOC is an idealistic powerhouse with plenty of moxie but it gives me no pleasure to say that she has little influence outside the Twitter-verse. She has sponsored 21 bills only five of which are in committee. 6 of the 21 were COVID-related.

        Business should be picking up for surgeons as entire NY congressional districts are shooting themselves (and us) in the foot.

        • Cato says:

          Wait — There is something “outside the Twitterverse”??

          You’re going to upset the worldview of an awful lot of people with these outrageous views! Next you’ll be telling us the world is round….

    7. Amy says:

      This is a weird thing for WSR to publish. Nobody has heard of Nadler’s opponents.

    8. Public says:

      Thought Boylan and Herzog were interesting candidates with a modern focus on our Future. Ms Appropriations Lindsey appeared to have the experience and Herzog had a ground/tech crew.
      MATH should start their own UBI party line. The Yang Gang is relentless! Jerry’s crew eli/gottheim/linda/gail is selective they do not help constituents equally. ”Constructive”

    9. JACOB WISEMAN says:

      SO GLAD I STOPPED VOTING WHEN BLOOMBERG BOUGHT HIS 3RD TERM

      • Chris says:

        And Jacob how much are we loving De Blasio ? I would take Bloomberg back in a heartbeat

      • Eric says:

        “SO GLAD I STOPPED VOTING WHEN BLOOMBERG BOUGHT HIS 3RD TERM”

        Jacob, to stop voting is to make yourself – politically that is – an “unperson” (as Orwell’s Newspeak dictionary would put it).

        Though your options might not feel ideal your vote- whatever your sympathies – is still necessary for our republic to function. In politics, sometimes you best option is the simply the least worst.

      • phillipe says:

        hey Jake I did the same thing,thats when my faith in the voting system went in the toilet and plus its a waste of time

    10. Bruce says:

      Term limits are no answer. For starters, the House and Senate are both organized according to seniority. Secondly, if you impose term limits, ESPECIALLY in the US Senate, you’re going to be left with people running to use it as a stepping stone, either to the presidency or the governorship of their state. And you’ll get a lot more people like Jim DeMint, who didn’t even stay for the one term he was elected for, and more people like Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders, who are there to mouth off, not to legislate.

    11. QL says:

      Too bad.

    12. Ellen Schreiber says:

      People all over the world are fighting for the right to vote, some losing their lives in the fight… and here we find some smug citizens who can’t be bothered. Voting is a right and a privilege and shame on anyone who thinks it is smart to stay home on election day.

    13. Joseph Lichtig says:

      In 2016 elections, I ran into Nadler and his aide outside a polling booth. He was talking to a long line of voters.

      I told him I had voted for him 4 hours ago. He instantly retorted “Vote again” and I instantly retorted “I am looking for Trump to show me how to do that.” We all had a good laugh