Reporter's Notebook: The District 12 Election
The Congressional race is about to end. It has lessons for the country.
At the beginning of District 12 Congressional election, I wrote a bit about my impressions of the candidates. As that election draws to a close today (the vote is tomorrow!), I’m returning to the race and offering a couple reflections on what I’ve seen while covering the election.
I’ll be back later this week with pop culture good stuff.
Tomorrow is the primary for a number of city, state, and federal elections, including the Congressional race to replace Jerry Nadler in New York’s 12th District. District 12 is the smallest Congressional district in the United States, as well as the wealthiest and the most liberal in its voting record. And yet, the campaign amongst Democratic candidates has achieved outsized attention, in large part due to the fact that its candidates including John F. Kennedy’s grandson, social media influencer Jack Schlossberg; Kellyanne Conway’s ex-husband George Conway; and Alex Bores, whose background in AI has given him an unexpected prominence in the national conversation; as well as longtime public health expert Nina Schwalbe, civil and victim rights attorney Laura Dunn, and Nadler’s own former chief of staff Micah Lasher.
While District 12 has received national interest for all these reasons, its real value lies in the lessons it has to teach about the current state of the Democratic Party and politics in the United States.
Money is controlling access and warping U.S. politics in dangerous ways.
Nina Schwalbe in Hell’s Kitchen. Photo: Phil O’Brien
For most of the race the four white men with access to Super PAC money and/or personal wealth have been the only ones to receive press attention. Most of the time they have been the only ones invited to candidate forums, as well. And their money has very clearly been their entrance ticket: Many political forums have made their decisions about which candidates to include based on what they’ve raised (including in Hell’s Kitchen, which bizarrely meant that the only candidate who actually lives in Hell’s Kitchen, Laura Dunn, was excluded).
Money has also provided the means for greater visibility, generating press interest. Until recently it’s been rare that Schwalbe and Dunn have even mentioned in stories about the election, despite the fact that they bring experience and perspectives that the other candidates don’t. (Also, for what it’s worth, Schwalbe’s Instagram has been the most consistently entertaining, down to earth, and thoughtful of any of the candidates.) Even this weekend the Guardian reported, “The contest has narrowed to four white men,” when in fact it’s only recently that the contest has started to recognize Schwalbe and Dunn at all.
As the lens has widened ever so slightly, with Schwalbe in particular being invited to be a part of more forums, their polling numbers have improved. In a conversation about the election on June 18th, local political strategists and reporters noted that they are suddenly “hearing Nina’s name all the time.” One poll in late May Dunn’s numbers had her close to Conway.
Laura Dunn gives a TED talk on gender violence.
Schwalbe and Dunn, who are the only women in the race, the only queer candidates, and in Dunn’s case the only person of color, have repeatedly insisted that using money as the main criteria for inclusion has been not only bad for them but for the overall political process. And the growth of interest in them as a result of relatively slight increases in their visibility bears that critique out. Particularly in a race where one-third of voters are still undecided, using money to narrow the field has worked counter to the needs of the electorate.
(And not to absent myself from being part of the problem: None of my own coverage has mentioned Patrick Timmins, who is also running for the seat. He hasn’t gotten any attention, but just a year ago in the primary for Manhattan District Attorney he received 26% of the vote.)
Distrust the narratives: Jack and George are not bozos, and Alex is not AI’s Manchurian Candidate.
George Conway on MSNBC.
If you’ve heard anything about this race (and no matter where you live, I bet you have), it probably includes one of a couple narratives.
For instance, about halfway through the campaign, the New York Times reported on the instability behind the scenes at the Schlossberg campaign. In truth for anyone who had been following his social media feeds, this was not the “breaking news” that they insisted (and that so many others have since parroted). Online, Schlossberg’s campaign has had a Throw the Spaghetti at the Wall and See What Sticks quality almost from the beginning.
But as those who have had the chance to watch him debate in person know, Schlossberg has frequently been a thoughtful candidate, with real understanding of the district and clear policy proposals that cut through in ways that other candidates’ generally haven’t.
Jack rallies with NYCHA tenants in Chelsea. Photo: Catie Savage
He’s also spent time on issues important in the lives of actual people in the district in a way that others have not: During the course of the special election for the local City Council seat, Schlossberg visited the residents at the Fulton and Elliot-Chelsea housing, endorsing Layla Law-Gisiko’s campaign, and showing up at her speech after the election to announce that she would remain on tomorrow’ primary ballot so as to keep the residents’ concerns in the spotlight. When Lasher opined about “housing that is crumbling before our eyes,” Schlossberg called him on it, because he had actually gone and seen their homes. “I saw the ‘decrepit infrastructure’ there,” he said. “That is not what I encountered.”
Similarly, while George Conway really has only one plank in his platform—Impeach Trump Now—in person he makes a compelling case. “We can pass the ‘Everything is Better’ bill…And he’s going to ignore it,” he said at the West Side forum in February. “He is not going to obey the law, because he doesn’t.” It’s a fair point. The other candidates can talk about all the legislation they want to pass in Congress; if we continue to have a president who does whatever he wants, arrests whoever he wants, attacks whoever he wants it’s not going to matter.
Alex Bores speaks on a bill in 2023 to close a loophole in New York state law which prevents people who are intoxicated from claiming they were sexually assaulted.
Bores meanwhile has been pigeonholed as the AI Guy and also perhaps also its Manchurian candidate, given the amount of AI-connected money he has taken (though other AI companies have also spent millions to defeat him). But in fact he has spent his first two years in the State Assembly passing a significant amount of legislation, much of it not flashy or even AI-related. Right now he has bills in motion among other things to require consumer wheelchair manufactures to provide documentation, parts, and tools to enable people to repair their equipment; to require food delivery services to have their vehicles registered; to require the replacement of all lead pipes by 2037; to prohibit the tethering of animals outside during dangerous weather; as well as on important tech-related issues like the collection of biometric data or a prohibition on the manufacture or sale of chatbot toys for children.
Whether he gets elected or not, in just two years he has demonstrated that he is a legislator of real drive and broad, electorate-based concern.
National political journalists have not served the people well.
With a handsome Kennedy grandson and Kellyanne Conway’s ex in this race, the coverage of this election was always built to be a circus. In some ways the attention given over to AI and the ridiculous amount of Super PAC money poured into this campaign have created other, more significant and important points of conversation for journalists to dig onto.
Unfortunately, most of the conversation that readers have gotten, particularly from the national press, has involved simply the regurgitation of other national press articles informed by these oversimplified characterizations and the male candidates’ talking points. At this point everyone has written their Alex Bores AI article, most their “Jack Schlossberg is low-key unhinged” piece, as well as some variation of New York Magazine’s initial in depth It’s Just Four Guys profile, with no further reporting done or even just further thought.
New York City is lucky to have a number of local sites (including, may I humbly suggest, W42ST) that are not interested in simply benefiting from other people’s work or re-posting clickbait for profit. But the parachute-based journalism has been frequent, largely unhelpful, and given its reach, very powerful.
Whither Hell’s Kitchen? Watching local issues and people get left behind.
Hell’s Kitchen locals celebrate the Knicks. Photo: David Gray
Most of the coverage (and until recently the candidate foot traffic) of this election has focused on the Upper West Side, with the Upper East Side also getting some attention. Meanwhile Hell’s Kitchen, Chelsea, and other neighborhoods on the East Side have been like red headed stepchildren. Most candidates have come here to hold an event at a gay bar and talk about how they want PrEP to be free. And that’s about it.
Meanwhile those same candidates have felt comfortable deluging the district with flyers filled with talking points that say nothing about the issues of this community—affordable housing; public safety; the growing fragility of business on 9th Avenue; the public health issues caused from being the home of some of the city’s biggest transportation hubs and construction projects (including the paralyzing levels of nighttime noise from the Port Authority construction); or support for artists.
Bizarrely, queer- and gender-related issues have also played little part in the conversation, other than by the two queer women who have been largely excluded. And that’s despite the fact that during the course of this campaign the ability to obtain the abortion drug mifepristone by mail was temporarily curtailed nationally, and that the federal government, which has already stopped New York hospitals from doing gender-affirming procedures on minors, is now demanding that our hospitals turn over information about those young people—and that local hospitals are agreeing.
Everyone talks about being there when the Pride flag was rehung at Stonewall National Park or says women have the right to choose what they do with their bodies. But where is the real commitment?
Ultimately, this campaign is not about AI or PACs. It’s about the Democratic Party.
Micah Lasher in a city park. Photo: Micah Lasher for Congress
Unlike his opponents, Micah Lasher has followed the traditional path to a Democratic seat: He has worked his way up. He worked for Kathy Hochul. He worked for Michael Bloomberg. He worked for Jerry Nadler. He’s also put in considerable time and effort in his own community, the Upper West Side, which many think is the key area to winning this district.
All of that work and all of those contacts have paid off—he’s gotten dozens of endorsements from establishment players and clubs, and in the case of Bloomberg, an astonishing $10 million to help him win. Locally, the very same white gay male politicians who insisted that the Hell’s Kitchen City Council seat should be held by a queer person, then backpedaled to explain the point isn’t just the seat, it’s the representation have all backed Lasher, despite the fact that there are two queer women in the race. So has Carl Wilson, who benefited from those arguments, and stands to continue to do so in his own primary vote this week. Lasher returned the favor, endorsing Wilson in a joint announcement.
This is how the Democratic machine has functioned historically. You work your way up. You make good contacts. You back them, and they back you. And if there are obstacles, maybe you throw a few elbows. When Lasher found himself facing the prospect of a candidate with the same first name, Micah Bergdale, his people did everything in their power to drive him out of the race.
But that tactic, which succeeded, highlights something important about doing things the Democratic machine way. Unlike many of his opponents, Lasher’s accomplishments or identity are hard to pin down. He’s progressive, but what does that mean? Even at debates, it’s hard afterward to hold onto what he said. This is the dilemma of being a Democratic apparatchik. You spend so much of your life invested in embodying and defending the establishment, your own shape and form becomes hard to see.
With the amount of time he has spent working for Democratic politics in New York City and State, and the investment he has shown over the years to the Upper West Side, Lasher should not have needed to worry about anyone mistaking him for someone else with just the same first name (who is otherwise completely different in pretty much every way but skin color). But he did.
In a way it would be sad if Lasher doesn’t win, because he’s done things the way he was supposed to, the Democratic machine way. No doubt there have been sacrifices that have come with that. This is how it’s supposed to work.
But in 2026, with the federal government not simply inadequate to the task of governance but actively undermining the rule of law, stealing from every coffer it can get its hold on, and attacking its citizens, nothing is the way it’s supposed to be.
And consequently the question in the District 12 election is the same question Democratic voters are asking more generally right now: Is doing all the right jobs and knowing all the right people in New York enough to merit a job in Congress? Will that really open more doors in Washington for the district than Schlossberg’s background and connections? Than Schwalbe’s decades of work in public health? Than Bores’ work in AI and legislative hustle? Than Conway’s sheer single-mindedness?
More importantly, does a career built on going along and getting along within the Democratic machine offer the possibility of the kind of fresh thinking and courageous action that the district and the country are clamoring for from the Democratic party? Beneath the burden of all the institutional expectations, marching orders and muzzling, is there a bold, forward-thinking progressive like Jerry Nadler fighting to dig his way out into the light?
Tomorrow, we learn what the voters of District 12 believe.
Excellent article! Fine evaluation of the NY 12 race!👏
Oh - I like this Reporter’s Notebook post. Learned a great deal.