All Politics is Local: Notes on NY CD-16 as Primary Day Approaches

Parsing Mondaire Jones' endorsement of George Latimer, how the local media is covering the race and what both candidates' campaign finances reveal.

1. On Mondaire Jones

Tuesday morning, I attended the press conference in Tarrytown where former Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones, who is running to take back the congressional seat just to the north/west that he held from 2020-22, endorsed Westchester County Executive George Latimer, who is running to unseat Rep. Jamaal Bowman. It was a tidy little lovefest in a conference room at the Sleepy Hollow Hotel, hosted by the mayor of Tarrytown, garnished with a handful of endorsements from local town trustees lining up behind Latimer, and attended by reporters from four local TV news stations. And me.

Jones, who is in a very tough battle against incumbent Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, said he was endorsing Latimer for two reasons. First, he wanted to be associated with him because they are of similar temperament, in his view. Or as he put it, “Residents of Westchester expect the same things from their representatives in Congress, that they represent all of their constituents, that they know their districts well, that they be level-headed and eager to listen [and] that they lead responsibly and not recklessly.” The implications were all clear.

Jones then recited the Democratic catechism that Latimer is using as he sells himself to the voters. “He's a guy with a track record of delivering results, including keeping our communities safe from gun violence, protecting reproductive freedom, investing in infrastructure, combating climate change, standing strong with our allies like Israel, and safeguarding our democracy.”

His second stated reason for backing Latimer was more negative. “I am making this endorsement to stand up for my Jewish constituents, because Representative Bowman and I have very different views on Israel. I have been horrified, in particular, by his denial of the sexual assault of Israeli women by Hamas on October 7 [something Bowman has since disavowed but not apologized for], as well as his recent acceptance of the DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] endorsement despite the fact that the DSA amplified a pro-Hamas rally on social media in the days following October 7. I have had countless and ongoing conversations with Jewish residents in my district who feel anxiety, fear, and anger due to Representative Bowman’s words and actions and the overall climate in this country that his behavior has contributed to. I will always stand up for my Jewish constituents, and I will be damned if I allow anyone to tear at the fabric of our civil rights coalition between black people and Jewish people in the Hudson Valley and throughout this country.”

Mondaire Jones and George Latimer, speaking at their endorsement event in Tarrytown, June 4, 2024 (Photo by Micah L. Sifry)

There are two ways to read all of this. One is that Jones and Latimer are finding common cause because they are both basically moderates tacking with the political winds. In Jones’ case, the wave of white suburban sympathy for Black lives that in 2020 helped buoy him, a political newcomer, to a powerful primary win against a field of accomplished local white politicians has clearly subsided. Swing voters in his somewhat more exurban district are more worried about immigration and crime now, so he’s tacked towards the center. Now that Israel is such a hot-button issue for Jones’ Jewish constituents—who by the way include a huge bloc of ultra-Orthodox voters in Rockland County who are much more hawkish on the topic—he also wanted to show that he was really different from Bowman, someone who he is sometimes confused with. (Notably, Jones, who I have heard complain about this in the past, doesn’t say what’s obvious, which is that sadly many white voters can’t tell two Black men apart.)

Bowman, of course, has helped set the stage for this shift in the politics of the region by taking outspoken and sometimes divisive stands on the Israel-Palestine conflict (a topic I covered in greater detail two weeks ago). And the local organized Jewish community is far more conservative than those in some other parts of the country, so the kind of tectonic clash now occurring between Bowman and many Jews was perhaps destined to happen even if October 7th and its aftermath hadn’t inflamed everyone. But things here have reached the point where people in the middle are being whiplashed; supporters of Latimer accuse Bowman supporters of being antisemites; Bowman supporters accuse Latimer backers of being racists; and if you aren’t sure, your friends on both sides think worse of you.

To give one fresh example of how this is playing out: Bowman recently went on The Breakfast Club, a popular urban talk radio show with a big hip-hop audience, to explicitly juxtapose US military aid to Israel for “genocide” with deferred spending on social programs here at home. So much for not feeding Jewish fears. And after he was on the show, some Latimer supporters mocked him online for his speaking style. So much for racial sensitivity.

The other way to read the Jones-Latimer political alliance is that money doesn’t just talk, it screams. And Jones needs to raise a lot of money in his fight against Lawler. As of the end of the first quarter of 2024, Jones and Lawler each had just over $3 million in cash on hand. And while AIPAC is already backing the Republican, it’s possible that Jones expects to benefit from this move. It’s important to remember that there are really two streams of AIPAC-connected money cascading right now across Democratic primaries. One is coming from local individual donors who like Latimer’s politics and who are giving to him through AIPAC’s donor portal, so the association is clear. The other is coming from wealthy outsiders, including several Republican billionaires, who have poured big checks into the United Democracy Project, an independent SuperPAC that has already spent $10 million to help Latimer and hurt Bowman. Most politicians don’t ignore giant piles of money; it’s the lifeblood of their campaigns. (More on this topic below.)

All that said, it was stunning and revealing to see how far Jones would go to both assert his importance and pour fuel on the already burning bonfire of inter-communal division in Westchester. This is, don’t forget, someone with such a fierce desire to be in Congress that two years ago, he was muscled out of his home district by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney and then tried to carpetbag himself into Brooklyn’s newly redrawn 10th district, dividing the progressive base there and helping to elect Dan Goldman, a congressional aide with a family-funded war-chest. Political columnist Ross Barkan has more on all of this at his Substack. This history explains why leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are now furious at Jones—they remember that he effectively spoiled the chances of progressive Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou from winning that race, and now they see him doing the same to Bowman.

I get that Jones and Bowman have different political philosophies and styles. But by emphasizing that he is making this move on behalf of his Jewish constituents, Jones overstepped, in my humble opinion. “This is about me standing up for the Jewish community,” he told Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod. “I want to be very clear about that.” The fact is, there is no singular Jewish community—and that’s not just because of the old joke about “two Jews, three opinions.” I know plenty of local Jews who are either torn by this primary or planning to vote for Bowman. Some are committed anti-Zionists, but many are in fact quite upset by how Israel has ravaged Gaza and appreciate the overall direction of Bowman’s advocacy. Not very many are parsing the details of when he called for a cease-fire or if that call was insufficiently clear about the hostages being freed as part of it. And now they’re mad at Jones, in ways that remind me of their anger at Maloney two years ago. Which is terrible, since Jones is going to need their help door-knocking if he is to win his race in the fall. A hundred Jews for Jamaal just rallied Saturday in Hastings on Hudson before fanning out to canvass (see photo below); these are just some of the people Jones is choosing to alienate with this move. And on top of that, the state Working Families Party, which has a serious ground operation, just rescinded their support for Jones.

2. On George Latimer

Attending this press conference gave me my first chance to hear Latimer’s stump speech. It boils down to two themes: localism, not globalism; and perspiration, not aspiration. While he calls himself a progressive, he’s really more of an old-fashioned liberal. Why should people support him? Because—I’m paraphrasing—as county executive, he’s put $5 million into black maternal health programs, he’s supported neighborhood health centers in poorer areas like Mount Vernon and Peekskill, he’s ended the county’s use of buses that burn diesel, he made county buses free during the summer, he ended gun shows in the county, he banned anti-gay conversion therapy, he passed a law strengthening abortion clinic access, and he pushed through the renovation of a major park in Mount Vernon. All small-bore stuff that add up to a record of decency and civic improvement, but nothing transformative. As Latimer put it to the reporters in the room, “Is that sexy enough to put in your national news stories? Probably not. That's the substance of government. You don't run for office to make a speech to get on TV. You want to go to public office to try and use resources in a way that helps people's lives improve to fix sewage and open up recreational facilities.”

But he offered a larger theory of why this might matter. “At the end of the day, the focus has to be on getting results, because Americans are cynical. And there are people who want to feed on that cynicism. They want that cynicism to lead for opportunity for them to be totalitarian. When people get fed up, they turn the power over to one person and that one person, they'll make it all right, they can fix it all. That leads to the end of democracy. The alternative to that is not to have alternate positions that are equally unattractive to the American public. The alternative to that is hard work that produces positive results that people see….So that's what this campaign is about.” As a positive case for his candidacy, this is perfectly reasonable. But it may not be enough to inspire those Democrats who are hungry for systemic change and frustrated by the incrementalism of their leaders.

3. On the local media

Given the opportunity to directly question Latimer and Jones, the local TV reporters at Tuesday’s press conference showed no interest in exploring any of the issues that are dangling in this race, such as Latimer’s recent statement opposing raising taxes on the wealthy, or questions about his environmental record, or David Moore of Sludge’s recent scoop that he hasn’t yet filed his personal financial disclosure statement, which was legally required months ago. Instead they asked Jones what his message was to Bowman voters and whether he had reached out to Bowman before making his endorsement decision (he said he did not); and they asked Latimer how he reacted to Jones’ statement of support for the local Jewish community, whether he would campaign for Jones in the general (duh yes), and whether he was worried the district was getting too divided along racial or religious lines. One reporter asked both men if they would attend a possible speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that is in the offing; both said they would not boycott any foreign leader’s speech to Congress. I’ve seen much harder pitches at my daughter’s softball games.

Just as the press conference was being closed, I managed to ask Latimer a question. Since he had talked about wanting to fighting public cynicism about politics, I asked him if he recognized how the massive amount of money being spent on his behalf ($10 million at latest count) by outside groups (alongside maybe a million on Bowman’s behalf) was contributing to that cynicism and what he would do to address the problem of big money politics. His answer was a deflection. He said that “the majority” of his donations came from people in Westchester and the Bronx, while 90% of Bowman’s comes from outside, and “involve people whose positions on Israel are on the other side of the equation.” As for the $10 million flooding the airwaves and online media on his behalf—one could objectively say, “skewing the results” in his favor—Latimer only said that he had no control over it.

The latest on total ad spending from AdImpact

4. Money in local politics

Latimer’s statement about where his money is coming from versus Bowman’s is only half-true. He is right that 90% of the $2.7 million that Bowman has raised comes from outside Westchester County. But he is wrong when he says that the majority of his own money comes “from the Westchester and the Bronx.” It does not. And a closer look at Latimer’s fundraising is revealing for another reason: it shows a substantial dependence on big donors. If you’re wondering why he would position himself to the right of most Democrats, including President Biden, on the topic of raising taxes on the wealthy, at least part of the answer is he doesn’t want to alienate the people carpeting his path to office. And who knows, maybe he doesn’t want his own taxes to go up—without a financial disclosure statement, who can judge? Sure, you could argue that he’s worried about wealthier voters in Westchester who want to keep their taxes down, but this is a bright blue district, not a swing one.

Back in January after Latimer posted his first three months of fundraising to the FEC, he bragged that of the $1.3 million he had raised then, 73% came from Westchester or the Bronx, “indicating overwhelming grassroots support for his candidacy.” Well, I downloaded the current data from the FEC, which includes that 2023 fourth quarter as well as the first quarter of 2024 and here’s what I found. Of the $3.67 million he has disclosed so far, $1.76 million—or 48%—has come from donors in Westchester and the Bronx. The majority has come from elsewhere.

Of that $1.76 million, about $145,000 has come from donors in northern Westchester or the northwestern Bronx (aka Riverdale) who don’t live in the district, so if you want to be really precise, just 44% of his money comes from the actual district he is running to represent. I find it interesting that Latimer always says he has donors from the Bronx, but in fact none of them are from Co-op City, the big working-class neighborhood that was added to the district last year. As for the “overwhelming grassroots support” demonstrated by his local donations, the vast bulk of them come from just five wealthy communities: Larchmont ($242K), Mamaroneck ($164K), New Rochelle ($228K), his hometown of Rye ($113K), and Scarsdale ($437K). He’s raised a paltry $1500 from Mount Vernon (from just two donors) and $14K from Yonkers. His one donor from Peekskill, another relatively poor city in northern Westchester, is a real estate developer who maxed out by giving him $3300 for the primary and the $3300 for the general election.

And that’s the other striking thing about comparing Latimer’s donor base to Bowman’s. Just $179K, 5% of Latimer’s total haul, of $3.67 million has come from people giving less than $200, which the FEC doesn’t itemize, and which most campaign finance analysts refer to as “small donors.” Bowman has raised $587K from such donors, roughly 22% of his total. And while both men have close to the same number of individual itemized donors (about 4800 for Latimer and 4500 for Bowman), far more people have maxed out to Latimer--472 to 196--by giving at least $3300, the legal limit for individual donations. (Note: My numbers may be off slightly; pulling this together involved a fair amount of late-night spreadsheet jockeying, but I stand by their overall import. I suppose this is where I should put another plug for becoming a paying subscriber, right?)

You can tell a lot about a politician by looking at their campaign finance profile. A politician’s donor base is a little like their DNA; it shapes the stands they will or won’t take, in the same way that DNA shapes how muscular or smart you’ll be. That doesn’t mean a politician can’t grow or change; all of them do as the political environment around them shifts. But Democrats voting in this primary should go into it eyes wide open about not just whether a candidate is being backed by pro-Israel or Israel-critical organizations; the places and class backgrounds of the people giving to them matter a lot too. That said, what the campaign finance profiles of both candidates show is that the primary in CD-16 is very much now a national proxy fight between the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic party, with rightwing billionaires and backlashing Jews changing the political equations of past races.

5. The field game

Speaking of place, after I left the Tarrytown hotel, I took a few hours to meander around the central part of the district in order to see, visually, how the war for lawn signs is going. After all, if making a big campaign donation is one signal of voter passion for a candidate, putting a lawn sign out is another. So I took a tour of the Jewish communities on the south side of White Plains, then zig-zagged through Scarsdale, New Rochelle and Pelham. I drove slowly through the leafy side streets near Bet Am Shalom (Reconstructionist), the Temple Israel Center (Conservative), Congregation Kol Ami (Reform), Young Israel of Scarsdale (Orthodox), Scarsdale Synagogue (Reform), Young Israel of New Rochelle (Orthodox), Temple Israel of New Rochelle (Reform), and the Pelham Jewish Center (Conservative).

On almost every block, I saw Latimer lawn signs, often at least two on a street of a dozen houses and many times more than that. Sometimes they were joined with “I Stand with Israel” signs or Israeli flags. I didn’t see a single Bowman sign until I reached the more southern part of New Rochelle, which is more of a mixed community. I then wandered west through the somewhat more packed and less leafy streets of Mount Vernon, which should be more of a Bowman stronghold. The only Bowman signs I saw were on a couple of storefronts on Gramatan Ave, one of the city’s main streets. And then back home here in Hastings, another relative Bowman stronghold, the Latimer signs also outnumber the Bowman ones.

Signs of support for George Latimer (Photos by Micah L. Sifry)

The primary is less than three weeks away.

As I finished writing this piece, news came of Senator Elizabeth Warren’s endorsement of Bowman. “Together, we’ve worked with President Biden to protect renters and have plans to lower housing costs,” she told the New York Times in a statement. “I look forward to continued partnership, shoulder-to-shoulder, to stand up to MAGA extremists and deliver for working families.” And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s leadership PAC, Courage to Change, announced a $235,000 digital ad buy in support of her Squad-mate. Nearly all the big feet have fallen in this race; I suppose the only pair left belong to a former presidential candidate who lives just to the north in Chappaqua.

What is unseen in all this is how voter outreach is going. Both candidates have small armies of volunteers canvassing and phone-banking for them, and those include local people as well as outsiders. In just the next week, the Bowman campaign has twenty canvasses scheduled on Mobilize; the Latimer campaign has eight. Latimer is also benefiting from the GOTV efforts of Westchester Unites, the supposedly nonpartisan effort that is focused on getting synagogue-affiliated Westchester Jews to the polls. I’ve already written that I think this race tilts towards a Latimer victory. As the primary comes down to the wire, I suppose the dangling question is whether a bunch of scruffy socialist kids from DSA and Sunrise can help Bowman build a surge in the Black and brown neighborhoods of Co-op City, Mount Vernon, Yonkers and Portchester to match what is already building in the leafier parts of the district. I am not holding my breath.