← Max Politics
Max Politics
Micah Lasher on Winning the NY-12 Primary, Democratic Unity, & What Comes Next
01:06:24
Assemblymember Micah Lasher joined the show to di…
Loading summary
Transcript92 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Hello and welcome to Max Politics. This is Ben Max coming to you from New York Law School and its center for New York City and State Law. Thanks for tuning in. It's Tuesday, July 14, 2026, and my guest on the show is Micah Lasher, who in June won the crowded and competitive Democratic primary In New York's 12th congressional district, the seat being vacated by the retiring Congressman Jerry Nadler, who endorsed Lasher as his successor. The district spans much of the east and west sides of Manhattan, with major voting bases on the Upper west side and Upper east side, but the district extends down to roughly 14th street at its southern boundary. Lasher, currently a State assembly member representing the Upper west side, was backed not only by Nadler, but also Governor Kathy Hochul, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and many other current and former elected officials, as well as a variety of political clubs and others. He previously worked in different roles for Nadler, Bloomberg and Hochul and has been around New York politics and government for decades, though he still falls into the category of someone representing significant generational change in the Democratic Party, which we've seen as a key theme across a number of races and elections in recent years, including in the June primaries here in New York. More broadly, Lasher's victory was not an easy one, though he won the primary, which is seeing around 105,000 votes or so, with about 40,000 votes, or roughly 40%. In second place was east side Assembly member Alex Boris, who received about 35% of the vote, followed by Jack Schlossberg at about 11%, Nina Schwelbe at about 7%, and George Conway at about 6%. In many ways, this race focused a lot on artificial intelligence, even though the issue wasn't necessarily at the forefront of the district's voters concerns. In the Assembly, Boris had been the lead sponsor of an AI regulation law, and major AI companies started putting many millions of dollars into super PACs, both for and against Boris in something of a proxy war. Meanwhile, Lasher and others mostly focused on other issues. Some estimates put spending on this race from both the campaigns and the super pacs, which are independent spending committees that are are not allowed to coordinate with the candidate campaigns, at over $50 million in total, a pretty staggering sum. Now, part of that spending was by former Mayor Bloomberg in support of Lasher's candidacy through a super pac, though the AI money in the race was far more than the former mayor put into that super pac. The dynamics of the race at the center of Manhattan were fascinating, and Lasher will give his account of how it all went down here on the show today as he reflects on the primary. He's now moving on to the general election where he does a Republican opponent, Caroline Shingle, who, though it is not at all expected to be a competitive race in this extremely Democratic district. I spoke with lasher on Monday, July 13, and I hope you enjoy the conversation ahead. Very briefly, two quick things. One, the group of veteran journalists I'm part of, the New York Editorial Board is doing a live event with the association for a Better New York on the evening of Thursday, July 23rd at the Green Space in Manhattan. And you can buy a reasonably priced ticket to join us for this public conversation which will also include audience Q and A, some light food and beverage, and some of the proceeds help support the work of the editorial board, which gets together and interviews candidates for office and other civic leaders. At this event, we'll discuss how Mayor Mamdani is doing. We'll analyze the results of the 2026 primaries in New York and preview the fall general election. Plus, we'll take some audience questions. So you can go to abni.org, that's Abney abny.org and click on Events and then scroll down to find it. Buy a ticket and join us on the evening of July 23rd. Second, very briefly, if you've missed any recent episodes of the show, do take a look at the feed. This conversation with Michael Asher on today's episode is another in a series of great post primary discussions with very interesting guests, including New York State Democratic Party Chair Jay Jacobs, the now Democratic nominee In New York's 10th congressional district, Brad Lander, who defeated Congressman Dan Goldman. I also recently had a conversation with New York City DSA State Senator Julia Salazar and others. Also in the feed, a post primary policy focused conversation with Arpit Gupta, who's a member of the New York City Rent Guidelines Board and he was the lone vote against the Mayor Mamdani promised rent freeze that the RGB has approved. And I also just spoke with strategist Matt Wing for a very interesting conversation where we assessed Mayor Mamdani's first six months in office, which had been quite eventful, including that rent freeze and the primaries where Mamdani endorsed a series of candidates, including Lander. So check that out and others if you've missed any, but only after you listen to this one. All right. I'm pleased to welcome back to Max Politics Micah Lasher, an Assembly member from the Upper west side of Manhattan who is now the Democratic nominee for the 12th congressional district of New York, and after emerging victorious from a crowded and competitive primary to replace retiring Congressman Jerry Nadler, who was supporting my guest candidacy, is now all but certain to be headed to the US House of Representatives in January. Welcome. Thanks for being here. How are you?
- [05:41]
B
I'm doing well. Thanks for having me.
- [05:44]
A
So how quickly does a Democratic nominee in a district like this come down from the high of winning the primary? Were you bombarded by constituent concerns right away? Are you still riding high? What happens in the immediate aftermath of winning a very tough primary like this?
- [06:03]
B
You know, what happened in the immediate aftermath for me and is is a lot of catching up on life, to be honest. You know, it was 10 months of a pretty intense campaign. And since, since the primary, I've really just been spending time with my family making sure that, that we we don't have bills that are so many months unpaid that they're going to, you know, shut off the cable and seeing some theater and watching some TV and doing the things one does to return to life.
- [06:37]
A
It works in a way for these primaries to be at the end of June, then you get into the July 4th weekend. It's sort of a little bit of a natural downtime, I guess, unless you have to quickly shift into general election mode before we dissect the primary a bit. Actually, let me ask you about the general election. Here. You are, as I said, all but certain to win. You'll probably win with a very high percentage of the vote, but you do have a Republican opponent. You know, you're going to have to remind people to make sure to vote for you. What does the general election approach look like? Do you try to raise and spend a ton of money here in the general do you start building out your government team already? Do you focus on helping other Democrats win swing seats? What's your what's the lasher campaign plan for July through, you know, early November?
- [07:29]
B
I think it's sort of all of the above. Certainly I don't want to let a lot of time go by without taking steps to think about what the congressional office and agenda will look like. Don't want to take the voters in November for granted. And certainly we'll be out there making a case to them. We'll need to raise money. We'll want to help other Democrats running for office in swing seats so that we're in the majority of. So all of the above.
- [07:57]
A
One of the interesting overlaps here is going to be the general election for governor. And obviously you're very close with Governor Hochul. You work for her as policy director, she endorsed you in your primary, which was part of a, you know, a very big coalition that you had of elected officials and clubs and others last time. Now, she was a relatively new governor and hadn't won her own gubernatorial election at that point. But it was a pretty close race, six points with Lee Zeldin. And one of the biggest things that happened in that race was that there wasn't very strong Democratic turnout. There was a little bit of a freakout among Democrats right before the election when the polls showed a tightening. People were worried about a lack of turnout. You have one of the highest turnout districts in the country. So how do you think about sort of impacting that even in New York 12? And do you have concerns that this is going to be a close gubernatorial race and it will come down perhaps to turnout in, in Manhattan that could make the difference?
- [08:59]
B
I don't think it's going to end up being a particularly close gubernatorial race. Then that should not be taken in any way to suggest that we should be complacent. Indeed, I want to make sure that every, every voter in this district gets out and votes for Kathy Hochul for reelection. But I think there were some pretty circumstance, specific things that were going on four years ago. They're not going to be in play this year. And I think Governor Hochul is in as strong a position as ever, and she's built a really strong record. I think she's been a bulwark against Donald Trump. I think she's been a steady hand. I think voters are craving that right now. And I think she's in excellent shape for reelection. I'll certainly do everything I can do to make sure that the voters of this district come out in force.
- [09:51]
A
Definitely some different dynamics, especially when you now have Donald Trump back in the, in the White House and Republican control of the federal government here. Very different, you know, dynamics at play. And from where I sit so far, it looks, you know, I think Lee Zeldin was a much stronger general election candidate than it looks like Bruce Blakeman is, but we'll see. So definitely some, some different dynamics still, though the governor, you know, doesn't have a New York City base, which I think is a unique aspect of, of her, you know, as a political figure. And even though she's been growing that and developing that, it's still, you know, she doesn't come from the New York, New York City or the area, which I think is an interesting dynamic.
- [10:29]
B
Yeah. But I will, I will tell you, during our primary, when we polled her, I Think if it wasn't in our final poll, it was either in our final poll or our second to last poll. She was extraordinarily popular in my district in a way that suggests to me that she has built a New York City base, even if she may not have started with one.
- [10:51]
A
Interesting. Okay, so actually, let me, let me start with a little primary retrospective right there. One of your keys to the primary was going to be the strengths of your endorsements. You had Congressman Nadler, which was going to, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, be the strongest endorser for you in the district in terms of how voters would. Would react. But then you also add in the governor, you add in former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, very popular in parts of the district, certainly a variety of other elected officials, especially from the west side and beyond, say a little bit about. And if you want to reference more of the polling, say a little bit about the importance of that validation and what that did for you.
- [11:36]
B
I think this was a primary, unlike maybe some of the other primaries around the city, that wasn't fundamentally an ideological contest. And it was ultimately voters, I think, trying to figure out who among the candidates would be the most serious and effective member of Congress in a district that cares about seriousness and effectiveness. That had been sending Jerry Nadler back to D.C. for a long time because he was viewed as sort of the ultimate smart, serious, effective legislator. And so I think in that context, the endorsements from Congressman Nadler, from Governor Hochul, from Mike Bloomberg, three elected leaders who occupy sort of different points along the ideological continuum, each of whom saying, not only are we endorsing Lasher, but we know him really well. He worked for us. We know how he thinks. We know what he's like when the doors are closed. And we think that he'd be a. An effective representative of this district to do people proud. I think that was a meaningful element in helping voters sort through what was otherwise maybe a somewhat confusing primary in a bunch of different ways.
- [12:57]
A
What was the Bloomberg polling like? Since you mentioned how, how Hochul did in the, in the polling for your campaign? What I mean, now he's been out of office for a while. He's obviously still got an immense amount of name recognition, spent 12 years as mayor, has been doing all of his philanthropic work since being mayor. But I don't know. This is. This district, you know, is still relatively new, and you've got what I would assume is a lot of Bloomberg popularity on the east side, but maybe somewhat less so on the west side. What did that what did that look like?
- [13:30]
B
He's very popular. And I will tell you that throughout the campaign, when I would talk to people, when I was out campaigning, there was, again, not necessarily an ideological line. You'd have people who'd say to me, I'm more left than he was as mayor, but who trusted him and who viewed him as sort of a leader who practiced a kind of politics that I think people are missing right now. And, you know, what's really interesting is that I would say Congressman Adler, Governor Hochul and Mayor Bloomberg, each of them, as it happens, extraordinarily popular in this district for subtly different reasons, certainly, again, some differences ideologically. But each of them, I think, in different ways have engendered real trust from the voters of this district in a way that made their endorsements powerful. You can have. You can have politicians who are very popular, but whose endorsements don't necessarily translate. I think there was popularity, but there was also trust. And I think.
- [14:42]
A
Well, I was just going to say, you know. Yeah, well, there's an interesting element with all of them where you haven't had real, you know, there's not like corruption clouds or ethical, you know, real ethical questions that have been surrounding them or anything like that. So I think that gets to the. The point you're raising there, too. So speaking of, what surprised you about the outcome here? I mean, so for me, there was. I think I heard you recently estimate in a conversation with Bradley Tusk that There was over $50 million spent on this primary, which is.
- [15:16]
B
There was more than. Yeah.
- [15:18]
A
Stunning number, both of campaign spend by all the candidates, and then the outside spending, which was a huge amount, including by some. By Mayor Bloomberg on your behalf through super PAC. But that's when.
- [15:30]
B
When Mike Bloomberg is getting outspent 2 to 1, which is what happened in this race, you know, you're in trouble. Yeah, yeah.
- [15:36]
A
A lot of. A lot of AI money, as most listeners probably are aware of. But. But. So from where I sit, there was this huge amount of money spent. But in the end. And so much of the conversation is about AI and Alex Boris and his record and, you know, all of that. And it was nationalized in a way that I think the Boris campaign, you know, and you've given him credit, you know, sort of took advantage of.
- [16:01]
B
But.
- [16:02]
A
But in the end, this mostly turned out how most people would have predicted from the beginning. You are the favorite. You have the Nadler endorsement. You get these other endorsements. You're the Upper west side candidate, which is as long as you bring out Your base, which you know, again is not a given. But like you, you know, you have the, the stronger turnout operation there. If anything, you know, maybe you lost, maybe you won by a few percentage short of what people might have predicted. But there were other candidates in the race as well. I wonder how you think they impacted you. So what surprised you about the outcome? Did you have to sweat through all of this? But it still kind of wound up
- [16:40]
B
where you definitely had to sweat through all. Yes, I know it was, it was a brutal experience. And by the way, I would add, I would add to the reasons that one might have thought from the beginning I had a decent shot at this. You know, I'm not a not insignificant record that I think set me apart from, from the others who are running. And in a district where that still matters, I think that, boy, it's hard to clock surprise because it doesn't all happen at once. You know, the race unfolds and certainly the role that AI played in the conversation, the amount of money that poured in and that kind of kept changing right to the end. There was actually significant amount of pro Alex money that came in in the final 10 days of the race. It was like just when you thought there was, they had done it all. So there was, you know, when all was said done, there was $20 million in pro Alex super PAC spending and another three or four that was anti mica super PAC spending. And a lot of that came in in the last month of the race. So, so certainly I think on the whole, you know, that was a role that was sort of a rolling surprise
- [17:57]
A
and certainly would make you feel very uneasy throughout the campaign and not sure of where anything was going to come out in the wash.
- [18:03]
B
Right. The, the combination, the way that the conversation. Look, I would say both the way that the conversation about AI became this big kind of national media conversation that was, I think probably throughout somewhat divorced from the way that voters in the district were actually processing things. And of course, you know, the narrative with Jack and his, and his, and his arc in the campaign, which was also a national media story. I mean, there was an element of, you know, I'm kind of sitting here again, having been in politics and government for a long time, having a record that I thought was strong, endorses, kind of, kind of couldn't get, I kind of couldn't get arrested by the national media during this campaign. Nobody was interested. And that was a frustrating dynamic. In the end, I think it sort of maybe accrued to my benefit. I've long thought that one of the most important skills or attributes in politics is being able to figure out what matters and what doesn't matter. And I've always sort of prided myself on my ability to sort of have pretty good instincts about what matters and what doesn't matter in a business where a lot of people attach a lot of importance to things that don't ultimately matter. And in this race, sort of from the beginning, my sort of view was I've got a set of things that support my candidacy that are going to matter in the end, when the votes are going to cast, be cast. But I will say that my confidence in my sense of what matters and what doesn't matter was tested in this campaign because you're on Twitter every day reading from the scores of Twitter warriors that you're going to get crushed, that you're boring, you're old news, that you're going to get crushed. You know, you're reading Michelle Goldberg columns and listening to Ezra Klein podcasts and, you know, you're, you're fighting for fourth paragraph mentions. And it definitely, even for somebody who has a pretty developed sense of perspective about politics, as I do, it definitely tested that, that confidence.
- [20:37]
A
I want to come back to another question, because it's actually one of my questions for you is like, what actually mattered and what moved votes? And that's a. Both on a substantive and tactical level.
- [20:46]
B
But.
- [20:46]
A
But before we get to that, just in terms of the way the vote went, was there. So. So one of the interesting things about this was it was less of a West side vs east side vote than maybe people expected. You did much better on the Upper east side than I think some people thought. Maybe again, the Bloomberg endorsement helped, especially there. I'm not sure what your analysis of that is. It seemed to be a little bit more of an age stratification than a west side east side geographic stratification. It was more of a north south geographic stratification. Any. Any interesting insights? Any thoughts on who voted for you more or less than you expected? And you know how the vote broke down?
- [21:26]
B
Yeah, I think, I mean, I think everything you just said is, is right. I think one of the mistakes that people made from the beginning and I, I kind of felt this way, but didn't really talk about it because it was a mistake. I think that accrued to my benefit, at least in terms of people's prognostications about the race was extrapolating from the Nadler Maloney race onto this race as a fundamentally east side west side race. And my view always was There were two pieces of that equation that were going to be fundamentally different here. First of all, both Congressman Adler and Congressman Maloney had represented the entireties of the west and east halves of the district, respectively, for a long time. They were both very popular throughout the entirety of those parts of the district, those two halves of the district. And so whereas Alex and I each only represent an assembly district. And I don't know that a voter in Chelsea starts out feeling any more connection to the Upper west side than they do the Upper east side. And conversely, that a voter in Stuyvesant town starts out feeling any more connection to the Upper east side than they do to the Upper west side. So I always felt that the, that the assumption that, you know, kind of I walk in with the west side, Alex walks in with the east side was a much. Was. Was. Because that's how it had shaken out in Nadler Maloney was not when this
- [22:55]
A
district was first created.
- [22:57]
B
Yeah, correct. So that was one. And then the other piece which related to the. The assessment of what, for example, my margins might look like on the west side was the New York Times. So Jerry won by extraordinary margins in that congressional race. And I think there were a lot of reasons for it, but this was a district where the New York Times is an incredibly powerful endorsement and they were not in the field in this race. And so those were two factors that I think made this race very different from Nadler Maloney of four years ago. I think you're right. It did turn out to be more of an age stratification. I don't know if I would have predicted that at the beginning, but in hindsight, that was sort of a predictable thing. Alex is 10 years younger than me. I think he was running a campaign focused on a very cutting edge issue. I was running a campaign that was more about experience and more. More of a sort of traditional set of policy questions. So. And I. But. So I will say I was a bit surprised by the turnout on the. Up by the results of the Upper east side. I think if you had asked me at the beginning of the race, I would have expected that we would have probably done a bit better in Chelsea and Hell's Kitchen than we did and done a bit worse on the Upper east side than the final results showed. And I think that was a bit of age stratification, some element of the voters that had come out in the mayoral election last year for the first time coming out again, I do think there was a. There was a kind of coalescence that occurred on the Upper east side or a partial coalescence that occurred on the Upper east side that we felt happening in the final weeks of the race, that was surprising to me. To feel it happening was not surprising. By the time we got to election night and saw the results, I'd felt that was happening. And almost. I couldn't almost believe what I was feeling out on the street on the Upper east side, and the election results sort of validated it.
- [25:07]
A
And what was at the root of that, do you think, or do you know? I mean, was that about stances on certain issues? Was that about the Bloomberg and other endorsements? Was it about.
- [25:19]
B
I think it was time you spent. I think it was just a bunch of things coalescing. I think it was. I think it was an ex. It was somewhat, you know, I tended to do better with voters who, who are. Were the most plugged in, who voted repeatedly in primaries, who tended to be older. And I think that those voters who do a lot of homework, and I think those voters are a lot on the Upper east side. And I think in a way that surprised me that that overcame the fact that I was running against somebody who represented them. I think also I do think that the. The Upper east side is a somewhat harder. I, I think the dynamics are that the level of connectivity between residents and their elected officials is just somewhat less than maybe on the Upper west side. The bill, you know, buildings are obviously very hard to. You can't organize in buildings. I mean, a lot of places on the Upper west side, you can't organize either. Obviously, much of the Upper east side, fairly affluent, does not have significant needs that they're turning to their local elected officials to help them with. So I think that in a way, we saw this in some of the earlier in the early polling that Alex may have just started out with a slightly softer connection to the, to the voters in his assembly district. And I started out with the voters in mind.
- [26:58]
A
Do we know yet. Have you looked at the data yet in terms of an assessment of the other candidates in the race and who seems to have sort of taken votes that you thought would be yours or, you know, it seemed like Nina Schwalbe was becoming perhaps a place that a lot of progressives turned, you know, people who were further left maybe, and didn't love, you know, some of the ways that both you and Alex Boris were hedging on questions related to Israel aid or, you know, I don't know, other issues. Do you. Do you think that she wound up pulling a lot of her, what, 7,000 plus votes, 7% of the vote or so from votes that you would have hoped to have capitalized on. Did, did Jack Schlossberg and his 11,000 or so votes and 11% or so did he hurt Alex Boris more probably because of, of the age issue or how do you sort of see the other candidates and how.
- [27:59]
B
I think it's really hard to say. I think if you look at the, if you look at the results, you don't see a ton of geographic variance. So it's, it's not immediately. And again, I think because Alex and I, we're not occupying significantly different spaces ideologically. So I think it's, I don't know that you take one of the other candidates out of the race and you don't see broadly similar results. My guess is that, you know, and certainly if you take Nina, Jack and George and sort of combine them, my guess is the second choice, you know, those votes, were they to be redistributed between Alex and me, I bet a bunch, I bet a bunch of those voters stay home, frankly. And I don't think it changes the race. I don't, I don't think there was a dynamic where one candidate was, where the, where the third, fourth and fifth candidate place finishers were kind of clearly drawing from one or another of Alex and me.
- [29:02]
A
Interesting. Okay, so you win. Happy about it. You win with, though, roughly 40% of the vote. So 60% of voters choose someone else. Again, like you just said, maybe second choice. Maybe you're the very popular second choice of a lot of those voters. But what do you then take forward from that? What do you, you know, are there things that other people ran on? Are there things that. It seemed like there were reasons that people went with these other candidates that you now think to yourself, I am going to represent this entire district most likely come January, and I need to think about certain issues or certain stances I've taken in a different way because of the way that people found these other candidates appealing. How do you, how do you sort
- [29:42]
B
of think about that? I do think that each of the candidates really did bring something to the table. I think Alex, in addition to being a very serious legislator, I think he demonstrated the salience of artificial intelligence as an issue for voters and our government right now. I think Nina, both her seriousness about public health and the fact that she, she represented sort of progressivism in a, in a kind of, in, in the sense that this district has, has, has known for, for a long time. I think she represented something very appealing to voters. I think Jack, to his credit, in a way that at times, as a former policy director for the governor, I was envious of was was really trying to come up with novel new policy proposals. And I think that that's an important thing in the conversation. And George, of course, showed that there was a group of voters that really wanted someone who was going to go to Washington to fight with everything they've got against Donald Trump. So I think in each of them, there are pieces that I hope to, that I hope are reflected in my first term in Congress.
- [30:57]
A
What so, so let's come back to this question because what some of what you just said about each of those candidates also returns to this issue that you were talking about of trying to figure out what really matters and what doesn't matter. So say a little bit about what mattered in this race, both substantively and strategically in terms of what voters cared about and didn't care about. And then also what works right now, even if we're just talking about New York 12, which is different than some of these other districts and other races, but like, what actually works in 2026 to bring voters out. You don't have the New York Times editorial board, as you mentioned, people's, even In New York 12, people's attention is, is much more split up than it's ever been before. The value of local TV is different, all of that.
- [31:46]
B
Right.
- [31:48]
A
So what matters substantively and sort of strategy and tactics here to get people out to vote? What are sort of the top things on your mind about what matters and doesn't matter?
- [31:57]
B
Well, I'd say two things. First of all, I don't want to extrapolate from this district to anywhere else because I'm not sure, you know, I think, and two, you know, this is a district where voters turn out. So I don't know how much of, how much of this, how much of any of the campaigns ultimately really turned people out versus, you know, one, one over some number of voters. I, I think what ended up mattering, what ended up working for us, and it was a very unsatisfying way to run a race. It was not, you know, I think Nick Fandos in his piece about the, the results said something like, I didn't, you know, I didn't have celebrity and I didn't have a single issue that I harnessed. What I had was sort of a record of experience and support from people that voters trusted. I think that's true, and I think that's basically right. I think that there was, I think that you Know, going back to polling, when we, when we, you know, a classic kind of polling question that I think got asked in some of our early polls was, you know, do you want, do you want somebody who's going to shake things up versus do you want somebody who has experience? Something like that? You know, and this is a district that historically, you know, would have been very heavy, where the answer results to that question would have weighed very heavily on the experience side of things. And by the way, Democratic primary voters in general, historically and in normal times, really like experience. But obviously we're in a moment where people are really fed up, I think appropriately with the Democratic Party. They're appalled by Donald Trump, but they're fed up with the party and a seeming inability to figure out how to kind of take it to Trump and slow him down and stall them. And so, you know, that was a major focus of my work in the legislature and it was a major focus of the campaign messaging. And at the end of the day, my pitch to voters, and I sort of said a version of this at one of the debates is that you don't need to choose. Oh. And what I'd say is in the early polling that we did, the, the results that question were almost split in half that the voters this district were almost divided evenly on the question of is it more important to have somebody who's experienced, more important to have somebody who's going to shake things up. And so the campaign we ran, in effect, and we didn't, it didn't quite crystallize until I think one of those sort of toward, toward the end of one of the debates and I started saying this is, you don't need to choose between experience and a fighting spirit, that you can have both. And that in my candidacy, that was what the, that's what the district would get. And I think in the end, not by a massive margin and you know, a plurality, it's a plurality election with a lot of people running. But in the end, that was, that was the winning message. That was what people wanted. They didn't. They, they still wanted both of those things. And I think they picked the candidate that could most credibly say, you will get both of those things.
- [35:03]
A
Interesting, a bunch of differences this being a June primary with all the state legislature on the ballot as well. But, and the 2022 primary, the first in this district, the Nadler Maloney also should mention Siraj Patel, was in that race getting a decent percentage of the vote. That One was in August 82, 000 votes in that primary in 2022 and over 105, 000 plus in this one.
- [35:29]
B
So it was a little more than that, wasn't it? I thought it was like 19, 000.
- [35:34]
A
Oh, maybe. Maybe. Yeah, maybe. I don't have the final numbers, but. Yeah, but still, I mean it's a, it's a bump. And as you mentioned, maybe some of the voters that came out for the Mamdani mayoral last year were returning that were not traditional primary voters. Perhaps. Do you have a sense of how you did among Mamdani 2025 voters?
- [35:56]
B
I don't, I don't. There's no. That. Those are numbers that I don't. You know, we don't, you know, you don't get to find out how individuals voted.
- [36:04]
A
Yeah, interesting that. I mean, again, that would, that would go back to questions about some of the age gap, perhaps, but.
- [36:12]
B
Well, and the other complicated thing in this district is that a big chunk of the. I don't, I don't know numerically, but a chunk of the first time voters last year were also in this congressional. There was a, there was also anti Mamdani first time voters.
- [36:25]
A
Sure.
- [36:26]
B
So it's a tricky, it's a tricky analysis. Yeah.
- [36:30]
A
Anything other than what we mentioned about what people are not quite getting right or wrong about what happened here in this primary? I mean, I know one of your pet peeves about this primary has been that people haven't recognized that there was also a lot of AI money in Alex was Boris favor. You already mentioned that this wasn't just sort of like Alex Boris versus AI and versus the tech oligarchs. But anything else about sort of what happened here in this race that people in the sort of news or general conversation or you mentioned on Twitter or wherever narratives that you're seeing that are, that are more right or more wrong.
- [37:06]
B
I think, I think, you know, to the, to the AI point, going beyond the question of what the dynamics were in the campaign, I think one of the things that this race highlighted, it's obvious, obviously people have identified the unfettered growth and expansion of artificial intelligence in every corner of our society as a potentially existential problem that requires government intervention. And, and that there's a ton of money and political power on the side of companies that do not want government to restrain them in any way. I think one of the things that I am still processing that I would, I hope everybody takes a minute to process is that you have big sections of, of the tech industry and of the AI industry who are on the other side of that fight to at least to an extent. Right. What is the fact that there was $20 million spent for Alex, say. Well, what it says is that there is significant money and tech interests in the pro regulatory side of the equation. And I think there's a.
- [38:28]
A
Do you think that's true though or is that just sort of like one, one company, you know, made their bet so the other company came in, in the other direction. They're hoping to have, you know, they're showing an openness to regulation but they're really just hoping to have influence if
- [38:42]
B
it goes the other way. Well, I think that's a, that is sort of a more, that's a more. What you just said is perhaps a more realistic appraisal of the situation. But, but I guess what I mean to say is I, I think that, that we collectively should be very wary of this idea that there are, you know, good AI companies and bad AI companies. And before the Democratic party jumps into bed with the quote unquote, good AI companies and starts letting them write our regulatory policy, I think, I think we need to be, I think we need to approach that with, with a lot of skepticism. And I, I was, I was obviously frustrated that I didn't see that skepticism in the coverage of the race because it affected my own, you know, political interests. But I think more broadly I, I'm, my hope is that the Democratic Party who I think sees this, this war as a potential source of funds, you know, let the, you know, maybe end up with some Republican AI companies and some Democratic AI companies. And I think some of the press that was looking for that is, that is looking to identify good guys and bad guys. I think the story is much more complicated than that and I worry a lot as this becomes an incredibly important public policy question that we don't take at face value the idea that, that you know, that there's sort of, that there's not a self interested part of this in from any quarter of the tech industry.
- [40:19]
A
Well, this has echoes of other recent tech industry battles. Right. I mean this is like just the latest frontier, it seems like. And maybe it's the most powerful and most dangerous frontier, but. Right. It seems similar to what we've seen with other tech industry battles and some coding more Democratic or Republican, but really it's mostly about who's in power and who business could have influence in that respect. It's, that's not that similar to non tech.
- [40:47]
B
I agree, I agree. And so, so to that point I think that everybody would be well advised to View it in that context, in that history. And, and, and I think that's really important. You know, it reminds me when, you know, after Cambridge Analytica, Mark Zuckerberg, you know, is saying, oh, I, you know, we're, we're, we're enlightened. We want to, you know, regulate ourselves and, you know, look at where we are now. Right.
- [41:12]
A
There is a question here, though, because so much of this race was framed as Alex Boris was the lead sponsor of regulations in New York State in AI, and now there's been all the spending to defeat him. Yes, other spending from AI to support him, but he's been defeated. And this is a lesson for this race and the broader electorate and political world that if you try to regulate AI, we can come in and spend a bunch of money and defeat you, you as the candidate who won this race. How do you think about what the message here around this should be and what other Democrats in other places, including in some competitive, you know, purple district general elections this year, need to be thinking about, about this and the influence of, of huge AI money coming in and this question about who is going to be cowed or not cowed related to taking on smart regulation.
- [42:13]
B
I think the narrative that Alex's defeat was going to send a message that you shouldn't try to regulate AI, I think that was basically always bullshit. And I think it became pretty clear pretty early on in the race that it was both because of how spectacularly the anti Alex efforts backfired and accrued to his benefit, and because of the amount of money more than 2x that got spent on his behalf by the pro AI forces. And in the end, I think it was one big bonfire of money that didn't change the result. I think I would have won by more had none of them played. But nonetheless, and I think that basically everybody understands in the aftermath of the race that it was. That it is, was bullshit. Obviously, Alex had an interest in sort of making that sort of his campaign message that, you know, vote for me and send a message to at least part of the AI industry. But. And that's why I've been trying to make the point, as I tried during the campaign, but nobody would listen, that my record on AI regulation was, I think, the strongest of the race in terms of consistency and willingness to say no to the industry, and they should expect that to continue in Congress.
- [43:49]
A
I heard you in an interview with the budding journalist Eli Miller, who covered this race quite closely, you said that, you know, one of the things that happened in this primary race was you. You toned down some of your tendency to sort of take on powerful entities and maybe be a little bit more of a. Of a political, I don't know, brawler. Like. Like is. Is inside you to. To a degree. What was it on this issue that you were referencing there or what was an example?
- [44:17]
B
And I know, I know the exchange you're talking about, that it didn't come out quite right. I mean, okay, he. He was sort of asking why I didn't make that point during the campaign, that, That I do have a pretty. Pretty strong record both in the legislature and other roles of, you know, and a real inclination to kind of pick. Pick fights with the. The biggest bully in the schoolyard. And the real answer is that's a really hard thing to. To articulate in a campaign without a very. Without a shiny proof point. And I think that the raise act was such an effective proof point in that regard for Alex that I just think it wouldn't have been a particularly effective strategy to try and compete on those terms, even though, again, I think. I think I can make a very strong case that. That I've. That I've done that. I've done that in spades for a very long time. So that's really what I was saying, wasn't. It wasn't so much that I was concertedly toning it down much as it was that it was, you know, Eli sort of. I sort of made the argument to Eli and he sort of said, well, why did you. Why didn't I hear that on the campaign trail? I said, well, you know, how many minutes did it just take for me to make the case to you in a podcast? And I think. I think in general, that was certainly a frustration of mine on a host of issues and in a host of ways, which was that, you know, campaigns, you know, Mario Cuomo.
- [45:54]
A
Well, this is just. Yeah, but also, this is just the world we live in now.
- [45:57]
B
It is the world we live in. Correct.
- [45:58]
A
You have the bet. You have maybe the best district to make the nuanced argument in.
- [46:02]
B
And it's still really. It's still really hard. And. Yeah, it's still really hard. Yeah. All right.
- [46:08]
A
Now that the primary is over, what happened around a Zoram Mamdani endorsement or not, you have to either feel very strongly that, I mean, you had one of his top advisors, Morris Katz, working with your campaign. You were colleagues in the Assembly. I know he was also colleagues with Alex Boris, but you were at least at some point sort of informally advising him during his mayoral campaign. At least around sort of who should be the next school's chancellor. I think
- [46:39]
B
he at least.
- [46:40]
A
You at least have to feel fairly certain that he voted for you. I don't know why he wouldn't say who he voted for, but he wouldn't acknowledge that. But what happened around an endorsement there? You told this group, I'm part of the New York editorial board, that you would love to have his endorsement, but nothing happened there. Why?
- [46:55]
B
You know, I would just say this, which is, he's the mayor of the city of New York. The idea that the mayor of New York would endorse in not one, not two, not three competitive primaries for Congress is probably historically unprecedented. So the notion that he didn't endorse in a fourth, to me, is sort of entirely unsurprising.
- [47:22]
A
Okay, but you tried to work that out at some point or you got the message?
- [47:28]
B
You know, look, I would just say in general, you know, I've said. I said this New York Auditorial board, I kind of tend to take a pass in describing private conversations I have with people, but I would just say that to my mind, the fact that a sitting governor would endorse somebody running for Congress like that is actually the involvement of governors and mayors, sitting governors and mayors in competitive primaries is a pretty unusual thing. I think there has to be a. Generally a pretty compelling argument for it. And he obviously just didn't meet the mark.
- [48:09]
A
Yeah, I mean, again, to be fair, he. He was putting a lot of political capital on the line. Those other races, plus some state legislative races, and. And spreading that relatively. Relatively thin, came away a pretty big winner here. What is your assessment, as a real political analyst and political player of what he did there? I mean, he clearly accrued a bunch of additional political capital, but he also burned some bridges. I mean, for him to have Tish James out there criticizing him in the press is not great for him. Some of the bridges he burned are people who are now leaving Congress, like Nydia Velasquez and Adriano Espayat. But what do you make of the mayor's political standing coming out of this? And are you. Are you part of a voice of people that will create more democratic unity going forward in the city? Or, you know, how do you sort of see both his political standing and this sort of fighting within Democrats in New York City now that we're out of the primary season this. This time around?
- [49:15]
B
Look, there's no question. I think he's thrown out the playbook in so many ways that everybody was accustomed to. And I think that was, that was true in his campaign for mayor who, you know, I, I remember meeting with him shortly after I was elected to the, to the Assembly. He wasn't running for mayor at that point, but he was thinking about it, and he, he kind of laid out how he saw himself putting together a winning coalition or at least a credible coalition, I should say. He was, he wasn't, you know, he wasn't trying to tell me at that time like, I'm going to be mayor. He had, he was, he had a pretty grounded view of things, but, you know, he saw a path for himself. What he laid out at that time was basically what ended up was the coalition he put together. So, so to give him, give him credit, he, he had a vision way early on for how to, how to do this. And so, and in so many ways during his campaign, he, he did things in new and different ways. And I think that he's done that as mayor and he's doing that politically and he's chalking up some major victories and he's pissing some people off along the way, and, and we'll see where it all, where it all goes. I certainly, look, I certainly am someone. And I would say this, you know, time and again, I would get asked at events in my campaign, some version of, you know, where do you locate yourself in the, you know, in the kind of left versus center divide? And I wrote about this right after Trump got elected. I wrote a substack called something like Saving the New York Project from Donald Trump, where basically the thesis of the piece was that, you know, progressives and technocrats or progressives and centrists need to kind of get over their, their differences. You know, the narcissism of. Small difference narcissism, small differences, to use Freud's, Freud's construct. Because what we're facing and from Trump and Washington dwarfs differences between New Yorkers of goodwill. And I really believe that. I deeply believe that. And that's what I would say when I asked about this. And, and I think that I'm, I'm uncomfortable with the politics either on the left or on the center that is based on the idea that I'm going to fight against the members of my party. I don't like, I don't like that on the left when it's people running to say, you know, I'm going to, you know, I'm going to go to war against the center of the party. And I don't like it when politicians who are more moderate say, you know, give me money because I'm the bulwark against the crazy. I think that we've got a lot to deal with, and I think there's an enormous amount of stuff that the Democrats of goodwill and New Yorkers of goodwill can agree upon.
- [52:14]
A
So what are folks supposed to do in those situations, though, if they're running in primaries or in the case of someone like Tom Suozzi or you see a different approach between a Suozzi and a Pat Ryan? They're now entering a competitive general election season and they have to decide whether to sort of take a Big Ten approach and some of the positives and negatives that might come with that, or take a approach like Swazi takes, which is these Democratic Socialists are not part of my Democratic Party and they should, you know, form their own party. What should folks like that do?
- [52:48]
B
I mean, look, I, I have a lot of, I have a lot of grace for Democratic members of the House running and running in swing districts and in general, a lot of grace for folks trying to hold on to or rest back seats at any level of government in a tough district. So, and far be it from me sitting here in the cozy deep blue precincts of the Upper west side to lecture anybody about how to win those races. But I think in general, I think that we need to be a party that does have room for a divergence of views, particularly given the differences between districts that are represented. But at the same time, I do think there's a broad chunk of issues focused on economic anxieties, economic hardships, costs of housing in particular, costs of child care, issues that I think to give credit where credit is due, the further, the more left wing of the party has done a much better job of foregrounding in their campaigns than perhaps the more moderate candidates have done. That should be something that people believe the Democratic Party is strongest on and is delivering on.
- [54:15]
A
So I only have a couple more minutes with you and I appreciate all the time and I'm going to have to have you back later this year to talk more policy because I have a whole bunch of policy questions here for you that we're not going to get to but say a little bit merging into the policy lane, say a little bit about what you want to sort of be known for in Congress. Again, assuming the general election goes the way most would expect here, you'll be entering Congress in January. Are there particular issues that you really want to focus on? I know as you mentioned, you have written a lot on your sub stack and talked a lot of in the campaign about Democrats being a stronger opposition party, especially to a Trump administration, accountability and so forth there, but other particular issues and topics you want to most be known for and focus on and take on if you are indeed entering Congress.
- [55:08]
B
So I think in the immediate, the oversight and accountability work that the House Democrats particularly were the only majority, if we don't take back majority in the Senate, it is going to fall to House Democrats to impose accountability on this administration. And I think that's incredibly important work and I hope to play a part, a meaningful part in it. And I think we need to be thoughtful and strategic and walk in on day one with a, with a serious game plan in that regard. And I took a, I took a crack at it, at laying some of that out during the campaign. But obviously there's, there's a, there's a ton of work to do to think through what that, what that will look like. I think that the rebuilding of our rule of law, identifying what are the, what are the statutes that Trump and his minions have exploited, what are the, what are the norms and the regulations that were not, in fact, laws that he's trampled on that need to be put in statute. So I think that's kind of the, the legal reconstruction piece of this. And if and when we get back to policy making housing I have, you know, that is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. It is one that I've worked on a great deal. And when you talk about the cost of living in this country and in this city, housing costs are by far the largest slice of people's budgets, families budgets. And if we can't, if we can't reduce the cost of housing and if we can't do the things to reduce the cost of housing over the long term, we are, government is great at short term band aids to our structural housing shortage because the political incentives to deal with the structural nature of the problem basically don't exist. I would like to be involved in figuring out how we crack that code.
- [57:12]
A
Is there going to be a Lasher Lander partnership or are you guys too wonky and similar?
- [57:22]
B
Look, I know Brad a long time and I look forward to working with him. I know he cares a lot about housing issues as well. And so I think there'd be a lot of room to work together.
- [57:33]
A
When I had him on, he, you know, I asked him that question. He basically said, you know, housing, transit, infrastructure. And he also wants to be, and is already out there being, you know, sort of a Jewish leader with a voice, trying to really wade into A path forward in bridging gaps locally and then also trying to be a voice related to issues in the Middle east and the path forward in Israel and for perhaps a two state solution. All of those issues that are so thorny and have come up so much in this campaign season. He seems a lot more interested. Not, not that it needs to be the two of you in comparison or anything, but like he seems a lot more interested to wade into that than you do. Is that fair? Do you want to be a voice that tries to also?
- [58:21]
B
It is absolutely an issue of importance to me and importance. This district, this is a district, it's the most Jewish congressional district in America. And as I said on election night, that that is a point of great pride for me to be representing the most Jewish congressional district in America as a proud Jew. And I take that very seriously. And how we try to find a path to, to peace in Israel is something of enormous importance to me. And so I think I don't want to be defined by that issue. I don't want to be flattened into that one issue. And I did feel that that was sometimes what was happening on the campaign trail. And I certainly felt it acutely as a Jewish candidate in a race where I was certainly one of only a couple. But you can certainly expect me to be thoughtful and outspoken on those issues as well, perhaps in slightly different ways than Brad. But we certainly share a goal of how we get to peace and self determination for both Israelis and Palestinians alike.
- [59:40]
A
And lastly, just how do you see the conversation advancing around if Democrats do win the House majority around the question of Hakeem Jeffries as speaker? You've said you're behind him for that role. So has Brad Lander, by the way. But you have the DSA backed Democratic nominees in the city, at least not making that commitment. And it seems like there could be even a small block of the left who want to at the very least make it challenging for Hakeem Jeffries by extracting promises, perhaps not uncommon, to a negotiation around a legislative leadership position. But a lot of that would of course depend on what the margin looks like. But how do you see that conversation playing out? And do you think there are particular pressure points or issues that will be most pressing around that discussion?
- [60:33]
B
I certainly believe and said during the campaign that we need the Democratic Party generally, and I think this is true. If we take the majority in the House to be much more aggressive than we have been when it comes to trying to slow down, install what these guys are doing, I think it would be a terrible mistake to, in service of that goal or any other goal, weaken the leadership of a House majority. I think were we to do to Hakeem Jeffries what the, what some members of the Republican caucus did to Kevin McCarthy, which as a Democrat I certainly delighted in. But likewise, I think the, the only beneficiaries of that would be the right wing extremists whose agenda we are trying to stop. So you can count on me as a member of the Democratic Caucus, to push leadership to be more aggressive, more creative, more strategic than we were than we have been up until now in fighting what really is a fascist regime. But I will not be trying to hold the leader hostage in a leadership vote in service of that goal or try demand concessions that will impede his ability to lead a functional majority. And I think it would be a terrible, terrible mistake for any of my colleagues to do that.
- [62:06]
A
Seems like it'll be very interesting what role the big leaders of the DSA movement, Zoram Hamdani, AOC have in that because Mamdani is behind Jeffries as Speaker, even discouraged the primary challenge that was building against him by council member Chi O say so aoc, obviously looking very closely at running for Senate or President. So be very interesting there. And if they even have enough influence to dissuade some of those, I would
- [62:36]
B
just say it's on the point. One of the things I said during the campaign a lot is that we are the opposition party and we need to start acting like it's. And I think that's a sentiment that particularly my most progressive colleagues would agree with. But I would also observe that part of being an opposition party is some serious unity. And I mean, it also strikes me
- [62:59]
A
though the flip, the flip side of that though, is the Democratic leadership of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries at least, has been the leadership. And you seem to be among many saying that it hasn't been strong enough.
- [63:14]
B
I, I, I, I, I do believe that there are in a host of ways that we could be a more, that we can be more aggressive. I, again, I kind of wrote at some length about this. Yeah. During the campaign, but I just, I just don't think the way to, you know, at the end of the day, legislative leaders embody the spirit of their caucuses. You know, people, for, for as long as you and I have been following New York politics, people have been blaming leaders of the state legislature for what, you know, what goes on. And my observation has often been they are at the end of the day, in one person and, and, you know, a representation of the views of their conferences. And so if we want to have a more aggressive House Democratic voice, that's got to come from the members. But I don't think the time and the place to do it is through a blackmail process during the leadership vote.
- [64:17]
A
Real quick, I meant to ask you this. Do you ever have a moment in this win where you thought about the sort of alternate history where you win that very tight 2016 state senate race and what, what, like what. How life would be different or that you maybe wind up in this exact same spot if you.
- [64:35]
B
I've thought about it. I've thought about that question more than once. You know, obviously, the biggest, the biggest impact of not having won that 2016 race was a, was a very positive one, which was that I wasn't, I wasn't whisked off to Albany 10 years ago, and I got to see a lot more of my kids growing up that I would have otherwise. And I think to your point, politically, probably the best case scenario is that I wind up in the same spot that I now find myself in. So in a way, I won for losing in 2016.
- [65:15]
A
Fascinating, right?
- [65:16]
B
Fascinating. Yeah.
- [65:17]
A
I won't go into any more of that, but it just, it did occur to me, you know, when you won your assembly seed, it was obviously, you know, an interesting thing to think about. And now winning this, this primary, it's interesting. Can we talk a bunch of policy later this year, maybe towards.
- [65:31]
B
Absolutely. Anytime.
- [65:32]
A
We'll, we'll talk more then. Michael Asher, appreciate the time and thoughts. Thanks for.
- [65:36]
B
All right.