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.
Agree with you about Stringer. He's become a Twitter troll. I live on the UES and I will say that some of the most anti-Mamdani characters are strong supporters of Bores. If you are on Twitter, check out Andrew Fine (@AFineBlogger). Big Bores supporter. Hates Mamdani. Hates Brad Lander. Amplifies some of the worst accounts on Twitter like Reza Chowdhury. But loves Bores. I know other people like that on the UES. In contrast, old school UWS liberals support Micah. I ran into a writer from The Nation at an event for Peggy Flanagan and knew she lived on the UWS so I asked her who she was voting for and she said "probably Micah." Similarly, a friend sat near Eric Alterman, an old school lefty writer, at a luncheon, and asked who he was voting for and he said "Micah."
I agree with Josh that it’s interesting that Lasher doesn’t highlight his early endorsement of Mamdani. He’s actually trying to run away from it, even though it probably gives him a lot of credit with leftists. It does sort of reveal what kind of Congress person he wants to be right? And the kind of coalition he’s trying to assemble (basically old moderates). I know a ton of leftists who if they read that endorsement tweet and learned that Bores didn’t endorse until after 3 months, they would be more inclined to vote Lasher. But Lasher doesn’t want those votes it seems. Lasher’s campaign manager, Haley Scott, is also pretty annoying and obnoxious on Twitter (she also works for Dan Goldman). Bores’ campaign manager Alissa seems much more left wing.
I had actually decided on Bores and now I’m again undecided after reading this. There are lots of unsavory second degree associations both Lasher and Bores have (to be fair even Mamdani has unsavory second degree associations!) but Bloomberg funding Lasher right after Bloomberg funded an extremely vile anti-Mamdani campaign is just too much for me to stomach. I don’t think there would be a substantive difference with how any of them vote so I just think symbolically it would be gratifying if the candidate backed by Bloomberg and all these establishment types fails. Would be so vindicating lol
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.
Great article that aligns quite closely with my thoughts. As someone who lives just a block away from the NYCHA complex that is supposed to be redeveloped, Bores has been aligning himself with the rich NIMBY organizers here who oppose it.
I think it’s a cynical ploy for votes rather than him actually being a NIMBY at heart, but that’s all the more reason not to reward it.
Also, one of my college friends who worked closely with Micah in Albany had only positive things to say about him. Sample size of one, but another item pushing me in the Lasher camp.
There are unsavory donors for all of the campaigns in this race. I don’t like the fact that Bores worked for Palantir either. But at the end of the day what I care most about is policy and lasher and bores seem to be 95% the same on that front with the only major distinction being that Lasher is supporting the NYCHA redevelopment in my neighborhood and Bores is functionally opposing it
I think the fact that they are almost indistinguishable on policy makes the case for evaluating them purely on symbolism even stronger. I think Bloomberg is a racist old man who in the past supported stop and frisk and just last year funded some pretty racist ads against Mamdani. It would be extremely vindicating for the old man to get another reminder that he can’t purchase even a local congressional seat no matter how much money he puts in. And he has put a god awful amount of money for Lasher, more than all the donors for Bores combined. And yes I think Bloomberg is a more sinister figure than the effective altruist guys supporting Bores. Additionally, the big tech guys spending against Bores would also be given a blow that they shouldn’t even try to enter such a race again. I take the YIMBY point though
I think a large part of it is national capital-A Abundance pundits focused on splashy stuff like AI vs. more local folks who are more in the weeds on local issues and are largely behind Lasher
I loved the article but I’m not sure I got the essence of why exactly Lasher is better than Bores? What’s the one line explanation if you were to sum it up?
Eli Baby — get w / what’s happening … { D } is so in the sewer, been a generationow …. { I } the way, the wave of the future … { D } = Down in Dumps … ML just another klone … CITI-ZENS UNITE ! U HV NO THING TO LOSE BUTT YOR PAINS ! Your Friend, H
But I am put off by your dismissal of Nina Schwalbe as a spoiler. Granted that she has no chance of winning but that's not all a vote is about. If everyone goes with the "viable" candidates, we are signalling to the machine that we are accepting the EVIL OF TWO LESSERS.
So, I may be throwing away my opportunity to choose between Bores and Lasher (who, despite your insights, I have trouble getting to a strong preference) but I am signaling encouragement to future truly progressive candidates.
It is good to raise your substantive concerns. That matters. But it sounds like you would not vote for her even if you agreed on all policy matters, which is a bad move.
It is better to vote for who you want, and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want, and get it. [Admittedly, this last line is simplistic but I couldn't resist.]
Well thought-out points. On the topic of Micah endorsing Zohran long before Alex, an interesting data pt. In the first week of July, Manhattan Dem Exec Committee met to endorse Zohran, the only district leaders who didn't vote to endorse Zohran were from the UES. So you could argue that Micah's base was more likely to move to Zohran than the Cuomo-loving UES.
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.
Unfortunately, the district may be to the right of Jerry on Israel, particularly post-October 7th and post-the mayoral election. That said, I am not to the right of Jerry and will nudge whichever one wins to sign on to Block the Bombs.
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.
Agree with you about Stringer. He's become a Twitter troll. I live on the UES and I will say that some of the most anti-Mamdani characters are strong supporters of Bores. If you are on Twitter, check out Andrew Fine (@AFineBlogger). Big Bores supporter. Hates Mamdani. Hates Brad Lander. Amplifies some of the worst accounts on Twitter like Reza Chowdhury. But loves Bores. I know other people like that on the UES. In contrast, old school UWS liberals support Micah. I ran into a writer from The Nation at an event for Peggy Flanagan and knew she lived on the UWS so I asked her who she was voting for and she said "probably Micah." Similarly, a friend sat near Eric Alterman, an old school lefty writer, at a luncheon, and asked who he was voting for and he said "Micah."
I agree with Josh that it’s interesting that Lasher doesn’t highlight his early endorsement of Mamdani. He’s actually trying to run away from it, even though it probably gives him a lot of credit with leftists. It does sort of reveal what kind of Congress person he wants to be right? And the kind of coalition he’s trying to assemble (basically old moderates). I know a ton of leftists who if they read that endorsement tweet and learned that Bores didn’t endorse until after 3 months, they would be more inclined to vote Lasher. But Lasher doesn’t want those votes it seems. Lasher’s campaign manager, Haley Scott, is also pretty annoying and obnoxious on Twitter (she also works for Dan Goldman). Bores’ campaign manager Alissa seems much more left wing.
I had actually decided on Bores and now I’m again undecided after reading this. There are lots of unsavory second degree associations both Lasher and Bores have (to be fair even Mamdani has unsavory second degree associations!) but Bloomberg funding Lasher right after Bloomberg funded an extremely vile anti-Mamdani campaign is just too much for me to stomach. I don’t think there would be a substantive difference with how any of them vote so I just think symbolically it would be gratifying if the candidate backed by Bloomberg and all these establishment types fails. Would be so vindicating lol
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
Thank you for your service in this election Eli
Great article that aligns quite closely with my thoughts. As someone who lives just a block away from the NYCHA complex that is supposed to be redeveloped, Bores has been aligning himself with the rich NIMBY organizers here who oppose it.
I think it’s a cynical ploy for votes rather than him actually being a NIMBY at heart, but that’s all the more reason not to reward it.
Also, one of my college friends who worked closely with Micah in Albany had only positive things to say about him. Sample size of one, but another item pushing me in the Lasher camp.
Does the fact that Bloomberg is funding his entire campaign not bother you though?
There are unsavory donors for all of the campaigns in this race. I don’t like the fact that Bores worked for Palantir either. But at the end of the day what I care most about is policy and lasher and bores seem to be 95% the same on that front with the only major distinction being that Lasher is supporting the NYCHA redevelopment in my neighborhood and Bores is functionally opposing it
I think the fact that they are almost indistinguishable on policy makes the case for evaluating them purely on symbolism even stronger. I think Bloomberg is a racist old man who in the past supported stop and frisk and just last year funded some pretty racist ads against Mamdani. It would be extremely vindicating for the old man to get another reminder that he can’t purchase even a local congressional seat no matter how much money he puts in. And he has put a god awful amount of money for Lasher, more than all the donors for Bores combined. And yes I think Bloomberg is a more sinister figure than the effective altruist guys supporting Bores. Additionally, the big tech guys spending against Bores would also be given a blow that they shouldn’t even try to enter such a race again. I take the YIMBY point though
There is an extremely large overlap between YIMBY circles and EA circles. Yglesias is squarely within that overlap
I think a large part of it is national capital-A Abundance pundits focused on splashy stuff like AI vs. more local folks who are more in the weeds on local issues and are largely behind Lasher
I loved the article but I’m not sure I got the essence of why exactly Lasher is better than Bores? What’s the one line explanation if you were to sum it up?
Eli Baby — get w / what’s happening … { D } is so in the sewer, been a generationow …. { I } the way, the wave of the future … { D } = Down in Dumps … ML just another klone … CITI-ZENS UNITE ! U HV NO THING TO LOSE BUTT YOR PAINS ! Your Friend, H
Very informative. THANK YOU!
But I am put off by your dismissal of Nina Schwalbe as a spoiler. Granted that she has no chance of winning but that's not all a vote is about. If everyone goes with the "viable" candidates, we are signalling to the machine that we are accepting the EVIL OF TWO LESSERS.
So, I may be throwing away my opportunity to choose between Bores and Lasher (who, despite your insights, I have trouble getting to a strong preference) but I am signaling encouragement to future truly progressive candidates.
It is good to raise your substantive concerns. That matters. But it sounds like you would not vote for her even if you agreed on all policy matters, which is a bad move.
It is better to vote for who you want, and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want, and get it. [Admittedly, this last line is simplistic but I couldn't resist.]
Well thought-out points. On the topic of Micah endorsing Zohran long before Alex, an interesting data pt. In the first week of July, Manhattan Dem Exec Committee met to endorse Zohran, the only district leaders who didn't vote to endorse Zohran were from the UES. So you could argue that Micah's base was more likely to move to Zohran than the Cuomo-loving UES.
I have never been so tore on a federal primary before. Thank you for two extremely thoughtful pieces on the frontrunners.
Thoughtful post! Very helpful analysis
This is my district and this contextualizes Lasher and others. Thank you.
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
Unfortunately, the district may be to the right of Jerry on Israel, particularly post-October 7th and post-the mayoral election. That said, I am not to the right of Jerry and will nudge whichever one wins to sign on to Block the Bombs.