When it comes to foreign policy, the real story is the primary in New York’s 10th District. I’ll grant that Lander is better than Goldman: on rent regulation, climate investment, and public budgets, he’s more of a progressive, and at least he won’t use “pragmatism” as cover for shifting to the right. But honestly, this district has long needed someone further left than Lander. Don’t rush to call me crazy—just think about it: if even “progressive” has become an establishment option in a district, what exactly are voters choosing? Take the 2022 Democratic primary in NY-10: Goldman won with about 25.8%, while Niou got about 23.7%, a margin of less than two percentage points. More than 70% of voters didn’t cast their ballots for the eventual winner. That result looks more like choosing the least off-putting among a set of “acceptable options” than answering the truly urgent questions of housing, health care, Gaza, and climate.

The day your account doubles is when you’re most tempted to take a much bigger position—and that’s the most dangerous moment. Behavioral finance calls this overconfidence: profits can make you mistake luck for skill and a tailwind for a system. Politics works the same way: after one win, you think you’ve got the right direction, and that’s often when you’re most likely to misjudge things. Since 2020, plenty of progressive candidates have risen on low-turnout primaries and nationwide small-dollar donations. But once they’re in office, when rents, public safety, and budget constraints start bearing down, the limits of “symbolic progressivism” quickly become clear. What about you?