I’m still undecided. I think they will mostly be identical on policy so I’m trying to decide based on vibes. Bores just seems fresher. But I take your point about Lasher’s early endorsement of Mamdani (the lengthy post where he endorsed was pretty sweet and makes me feel warmly towards Lasher) but since then the Mike Bloomberg funding and his association with the most annoying establishment people makes me want to support Bores. The abundists (Josh Barro, Yglesias, Ezra Klein) are not leftists but I prefer abundits than establishment and Bores is the guy championed by abundits. I thought it was revealing that Lasher gave Mamdani B and Bores A- as grades in the debate. But now your post makes me want to switch back to Lasher. It’s a struggle.
The Mamdani endorsement struck me at the time. He did it publicly, a few days after the primary in June, and got a lot of pushback from rabbis on the UWS. Meanwhile when Alex endorsed Mamdani in mid September, it was not at all public. I only learned about it from a Jeff Coltin tweet. It was like under cover of darkness.
I feel like Lasher has switched his tone towards the left since that endorsement though, which is why I think the Bloomberg funding is affecting his posture. He implied he regretted voting for Mamdani, he’s been much colder to him, gave him a B and he’s much been more deliberately misleading about what the protests at synagogues were about (he purposely doesn’t mention the West Bank sales). Bores condemned the presence of Smotrich at the Israel parade, Lasher did not. Bores gave Mamdani A- as a grade. Bores is also endorsed by Bernie’ group Our Revolution. I don’t really understand Eli’s argument here that Bores would be beholden to Upper East moderates. I think he would be responsible to the coalition that puts him into office and it seems like he’s angling for it to be the relatively progressive voters. Lasher, who started out much warmer towards Mamdani, has already switched his tone because of who he is beholden to.
But Mamdani's advisors like Morris Katz and Rebecca Katz are backing him and there were reports that Mamdani also privately backed him earlier this year.
That is true but the cumulative signals on net makes me think Lasher will be beholden to the old boomers. His hedging on whether he regrets endorsing Mamdani really rubbed me the wrong way. And I didn’t know he worked for Scott Stringer. Stringer is just being obnoxiously repulsive on Twitter these days.
I have to say I was negatively polarized against Lasher just because of the Bloomberg funding. I really dislike Mike Bloomberg and I want him to get another message that he can’t buy elections and install his aides into office. It was satisfying watching Bloomberg be humiliated when he ran for president and take another hit when he couldn’t get Cuomo into office. Your post makes a compelling case that Lasher is not Mike Bloomberg. And I agree I didn’t know about Lasher’s endorsement of Zohran right after the primary. I read the whole endorsement tweet just now and it seems like Lasher is someone who can get with the times at least.
IMO there are basically two tiers of how malignant the NYC Dem establishment is.
Tier 1 (most sinister): Bloomberg, Julie Menin, Scott Stringer, Dan Goldman.
Tier 2 (still establishment, but less malevolent): Mark Levine, Brad Hoylman-Sigal, Kathy Hochul, and I think Micah Lasher.
The saving grace is that Lasher seems firmly Tier 2. His Mamdani endorsement tweet is the proof. You simply can’t imagine Julie Menin writing something like that. Goldman refused to endorse Zohran even though his district is much more left-wing, and Bloomberg funded those vile ads targeting him.
Tier 2 may still be the establishment, but they don’t give off the same dark, vindictive energy as someone like Julie Menin.
AI policy seems to be a central issue in this race, so I'm curious as to why it goes unmentioned here. Is it because you think that Lasher and Bores would take the same AI policy action, despite all the evidence (their donors) to the contrary? Or that you don't think it's really an important issue for your district? It at least seems like AI policy is one place where Bores chose to take a stand in a hard fight--not just pick at low hanging fruit.
Upon reading your other post I understand why the AI policy issue shouldn't really count strongly in Bores favor, and I also see how the Leading the Future money isn't all that compromising for Lasher. I'm not a NY12 voter (bless) but I think I would choose Schwalbe. Lasher and Bores' weak positions on Israel are, to me, disqualifying in a democratic primary.
I’m still undecided. I think they will mostly be identical on policy so I’m trying to decide based on vibes. Bores just seems fresher. But I take your point about Lasher’s early endorsement of Mamdani (the lengthy post where he endorsed was pretty sweet and makes me feel warmly towards Lasher) but since then the Mike Bloomberg funding and his association with the most annoying establishment people makes me want to support Bores. The abundists (Josh Barro, Yglesias, Ezra Klein) are not leftists but I prefer abundits than establishment and Bores is the guy championed by abundits. I thought it was revealing that Lasher gave Mamdani B and Bores A- as grades in the debate. But now your post makes me want to switch back to Lasher. It’s a struggle.
The Mamdani endorsement struck me at the time. He did it publicly, a few days after the primary in June, and got a lot of pushback from rabbis on the UWS. Meanwhile when Alex endorsed Mamdani in mid September, it was not at all public. I only learned about it from a Jeff Coltin tweet. It was like under cover of darkness.
I feel like Lasher has switched his tone towards the left since that endorsement though, which is why I think the Bloomberg funding is affecting his posture. He implied he regretted voting for Mamdani, he’s been much colder to him, gave him a B and he’s much been more deliberately misleading about what the protests at synagogues were about (he purposely doesn’t mention the West Bank sales). Bores condemned the presence of Smotrich at the Israel parade, Lasher did not. Bores gave Mamdani A- as a grade. Bores is also endorsed by Bernie’ group Our Revolution. I don’t really understand Eli’s argument here that Bores would be beholden to Upper East moderates. I think he would be responsible to the coalition that puts him into office and it seems like he’s angling for it to be the relatively progressive voters. Lasher, who started out much warmer towards Mamdani, has already switched his tone because of who he is beholden to.
But Mamdani's advisors like Morris Katz and Rebecca Katz are backing him and there were reports that Mamdani also privately backed him earlier this year.
That is true but the cumulative signals on net makes me think Lasher will be beholden to the old boomers. His hedging on whether he regrets endorsing Mamdani really rubbed me the wrong way. And I didn’t know he worked for Scott Stringer. Stringer is just being obnoxiously repulsive on Twitter these days.
I have to say I was negatively polarized against Lasher just because of the Bloomberg funding. I really dislike Mike Bloomberg and I want him to get another message that he can’t buy elections and install his aides into office. It was satisfying watching Bloomberg be humiliated when he ran for president and take another hit when he couldn’t get Cuomo into office. Your post makes a compelling case that Lasher is not Mike Bloomberg. And I agree I didn’t know about Lasher’s endorsement of Zohran right after the primary. I read the whole endorsement tweet just now and it seems like Lasher is someone who can get with the times at least.
Thank you for your service in this election Eli
Is it just me or does it seem like all the leading candidates are to the right of Jerry Nadler on Israel? It’s very strange
IMO there are basically two tiers of how malignant the NYC Dem establishment is.
Tier 1 (most sinister): Bloomberg, Julie Menin, Scott Stringer, Dan Goldman.
Tier 2 (still establishment, but less malevolent): Mark Levine, Brad Hoylman-Sigal, Kathy Hochul, and I think Micah Lasher.
The saving grace is that Lasher seems firmly Tier 2. His Mamdani endorsement tweet is the proof. You simply can’t imagine Julie Menin writing something like that. Goldman refused to endorse Zohran even though his district is much more left-wing, and Bloomberg funded those vile ads targeting him.
Tier 2 may still be the establishment, but they don’t give off the same dark, vindictive energy as someone like Julie Menin.
This is a very funny description and analysis but I wouldn’t say it’s totally inaccurate
AI policy seems to be a central issue in this race, so I'm curious as to why it goes unmentioned here. Is it because you think that Lasher and Bores would take the same AI policy action, despite all the evidence (their donors) to the contrary? Or that you don't think it's really an important issue for your district? It at least seems like AI policy is one place where Bores chose to take a stand in a hard fight--not just pick at low hanging fruit.
Wrote a whole blog on AI policy on Tuesday, check it out here! https://www.ghostrunnerblog.com/p/the-case-against-alex-bores
Upon reading your other post I understand why the AI policy issue shouldn't really count strongly in Bores favor, and I also see how the Leading the Future money isn't all that compromising for Lasher. I'm not a NY12 voter (bless) but I think I would choose Schwalbe. Lasher and Bores' weak positions on Israel are, to me, disqualifying in a democratic primary.
oh fire