Make New York Post a Preferred Source US Rep. Hakeem Jeffries speaks during a Democratic conference Nov. 13, 2026, in Denver. AP Photo/David Zalubowski Democrat: Hakeem Knows How To Win Rep. Hakeem Jeffries’ “kind of stoic leadership is easily misunderstood,” observes ex-Rep. Steve Israel at USA Today. “Jeffries helped steer Democrats to an epic victory,” yet some progressives “snipe that he’s too cerebral, even risk-averse” to challenge President Trump. This “assumption that Jeffries’ style doesn’t equip him for mortal combat ignores the very essence of his career” in 14 years in Congress. “Jeffries is uniquely built for this moment: A broad, diverse, unwieldy majority requires leadership that is both ambitious and inclusive.” He’s a leader who “listens carefully to members and rallies them around one strategic imperative: delivering for the American people” — plus “keeping the majority.” In the end, Jeffries’ “style doesn’t matter,” only “winning does.” And “he wins.”
“Big-ass-truck populism” scored nationwide in the midterms “as a new generation of outsider Democrats won more races than in any election since Watergate,” cheers Sen. Ruben Gallego at The Wall Street Journal. Yet this “populism” requires Dems to fight for the people’s interests, “not to act as hall monitors,” warns the Arizonan. We can put “ourselves on the same side as Americans’ best traditions and against frustrations with a failed system.” Too many party leaders fail to understand that “it’s pride and love of country that motivates us to make America better.” Our “chance to redefine American populism and rebuild the kind of Democratic majorities” starts “with staying focused on the cost of living” and being “champions for where Americans want their lives to go.” And “that we fight because we’re proud and overjoyed to be Americans.”
The “investigation into the Jason Arday affair” at Cambridge “will not consider” the “allegations” against Arday, “whether, for example, he was a plagiarist, or whether his work had any academic value,” notes City Journal’s Theodore Dalrymple. Rather, it will explore “institutional arrangements for recognizing and responding to race equality” — an “elaborate and expensive charade” to avoid “the essential question about the whole affair,” namely, “Should Arday have been appointed in the first place?” The whole exercise will “be like the blindfolded monkey who sees no evil.” It’s “a typical example of modern British public administration,” providing “simultaneous work creation and work avoidance, all at great, not to say pharaonic, expense.”
“Taking Hispanic voters for granted is a perilous stance — for either political party,” warns Maria Cardona at RealClear Politics. After “Democrats had fallen fast asleep at the switch,” “Latinos trusted Republican promises that their policies would lower the price of gasoline, groceries, and rent; curb inflation; and make their communities safer. What followed was nothing less than betrayal” and so “a sweeping, historic swing back to the Democratic coalition,” who “recruited top-tier Latino candidates, hired Latino operatives who knew their neighborhoods, and reached voters everywhere.” And tapping Stephen Miller as White House chief of staff looks to be “doubling down on hardline tactics” though Latinos have already “declared in one united voice: ‘¡NO MÁS!’”
New York “just recorded its biggest mid-year budget surplus ever — a windfall of at least $8 billion, propelled mainly by the surging investment gains of income millionaires,” observes E.J. McMahon at Substack. The state “is sitting on the biggest cash cushion” in its history, spinning off “billions” in investment income. Yet progressives are pushing Gov. Hochul to “truly ‘tax the rich.’” Hmm: High-income New Yorkers already pay “the state’s highest marginal tax rates in more than 40 years,” with revenue now both “more dependent” on them and more “volatile,” than ever. Plus, the “wealthiest segment of New York’s tax base has been eroding.” After Hochul’s 42% spike in state-funded spending, the “budget remains structurally unbalanced” — even as the state’s “revenue flow” could “easily slip into reverse.”
