Westchester County (NY)

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares169 Views

    Overlooked No More: Mabel Addis, Who Pioneered Storytelling in Video Gaming

    by

    She was a teacher when she participated in an educational experiment with IBM. As a result, she became the first female video game designer.This article is part of Overlooked, a series of obituaries about remarkable people whose deaths, beginning in 1851, went unreported in The Times.In the 1960s, Mabel Addis was an elementary-school teacher in a small town in New York State when she was offered a unique opportunity that would make history: Create an educational game with IBM.What resulted was the Sumerian Game, an early video game that taught the basics of economic theory to sixth graders. In it, a student would act as the ruler of the Mesopotamian city-state of Lagash, in Sumer, in 3500 B.C. In Level One, the primary focus was on growing crops and developing tools; Level Two oversaw a more diversified economy; and in Level Three, Lagash interacted with other city-states. In each round, students responded to prompts issued by Urbaba, the royal steward.The video game was text-based, but it is believed to be the first to introduce storytelling and characters, and the first in a genre now known as edutainment. It also made Addis the first known female video game designer, according to several game historians.The Sumerian Game “is pretty rudimentary by today’s standards, but the thing about being ‘first’ is that just existing at all becomes innovative,” Kate Willaert, the author of the blog “A Critical Hit!,” who has studied the game extensively, said in an email. Addis, she maintained, was the first video game writer ever.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Bowman Falls to Latimer in House Primary in New York

      by

      Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York, one of Congress’s most outspoken progressives, suffered a stinging primary defeat on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, unable to overcome a record-shattering campaign from pro-Israel groups and a slate of self-inflicted blunders.Mr. Bowman was defeated by George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, in a race that became the year’s ugliest intraparty brawl and the most expensive House primary in history.It began last fall when Mr. Bowman stepped forward as one of the leading critics of how Israelis carrying out their war with Hamas. But the contest grew into a broader proxy fight around the future of the Democratic Party, exposing painful fractures over race, class and ideology in a diverse district that includes parts of Westchester County and the Bronx.Mr. Bowman, the district’s first Black congressman and a committed democratic socialist, never wavered from his calls for a cease-fire in Gaza or left-wing economic priorities. Down in the polls, he repeatedly accused his white opponent of racism and used expletives in denouncing the pro-Israel groups as a “Zionist regime” trying to buy the election.His positions on the war and economic issues electrified the national progressives, who undertook an 11th-hour rescue mission led by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. But they ultimately did little to win over skeptical voters and only emboldened his adversaries.A super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby, dumped $15 million into defeating him, more than any outside group has ever spent on a House race.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Homes for Sale in Connecticut and New York

      by

      This week’s properties are six-bedroom in Danbury, Conn., and Millwood, N.Y.Realty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansRealty PlansFairfield | 196-200 Franklin St. Extension, Danbury, Conn.Six-Bedroom Contemporary$2.199 millionA six-bedroom, six-and-a-half-bath, 7,563-square-foot home built in 1988 that has an open family room with a kitchen and dining area, lots of windows and deck access; a first-floor en suite primary bedroom with a fireplace, walk-in closet, soaking tub and patio; a formal dining room and a sunken living room with skylights; two offices; a lower level with a dance floor, indoor pool, screened porch, wet bar, kitchenette and gym area; an attached six-car garage and a detached two-car garage, on 14.3 lush acres with a footbridge, waterfall and gazebo. LM Homes Team, William Pitt Sotheby’s International Realty, 203-644-6172; williampitt.comCostsTaxes: $28,499 a yearProsWith 18 rooms, there is ample space for living and entertaining. An additional en suite bedroom is on the second level.ConsSome buyers may want to update the upper level for a more modern and cohesive interior.Joseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerJoseph KellerWestchester | 62 Taconic Road, Millwood, N.Y.Six-Bedroom From 1966$1.68 millionA six-bedroom, four-bath, 5,034-square-foot home from 1966, with a stone front porch and spacious foyer; hardwood floors, crown molding and a built-in sound system throughout; formal living and dining rooms; an eat-in kitchen with an island, granite countertops, a ceramic cooktop and French doors to a deck; a family room with a brick fireplace; an office; an en suite primary bedroom with walk-in closets, a European-style bath with a jetted tub, a steam shower, double sinks and a towel warmer; a laundry room; a finished lower level with a recreational area and storage; an attached two-car garage; and a yard with a stone patio, tennis court and aboveground pool, on 2.06 acres. Alicja P. Bohmrich, 914-469-1156, Houlihan Lawrence, houlihanlawrence.comCostsTaxes: $32,836 a yearProsNatural light is abundant, and there is ample space to entertain yet plenty of private areas. The yard has much to offer and the deck is inviting.ConsThe bathrooms are outdated and some wallpaper may not be appealing to all buyers.Given the fast pace of the current market, some properties may no longer be available at the time of publication.For weekly email updates on residential real estate news, sign up here. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Bowman Is Latest House Democrat to Face a Primary Over Israel Stance

      by

      George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, told The New York Times he would run against Mr. Bowman, a rising star of the Democratic left, next year.After months of public deliberation and prodding from donors aligned with Israel, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, said on Wednesday that he would mount a Democratic primary challenge against Representative Jamaal Bowman of New York.The decision set the stage for a potentially explosive contest next year that promises to test not only the growing Democratic divide over the war in the Middle East but the durability of the party’s progressive wing.In an interview, Mr. Latimer drew sharp contrasts between himself and Mr. Bowman, one of left’s most vocal critics of Israel. He dismissed the incumbent’s calls for a cease-fire as premature and called a recent protest outside the White House, where the congressman accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, a political stunt.“It’s about results, not rhetoric,” said Mr. Latimer, who has deep ties to the Democratic establishment. “So much of politics has turned into that sort of showmanship — how you look in front of the cameras.”He was expected to officially begin his campaign with a video announcement later on Wednesday, just days after returning from a wartime visit to the region.The nascent contest echoes primary fights breaking out from Pittsburgh to Detroit since Hamas’s deadly Oct. 7 attack, as pro-Israel Democrats try to oust members of the House “Squad” pushing for a cease-fire. Like the other challengers, Mr. Latimer is expected to benefit from millions of dollars in outside spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and other special interest groups.The race in the New York City suburbs, though, may be uniquely complex. It pits a charismatic Black progressive with a growing national profile against an old-school white liberal with deep local support. And it will play out in a district that is both home to one of the country’s most influential Jewish communities and also nearly half Black or Latino.Mr. Latimer said he shared many of Mr. Bowman’s progressive priorities but would avoid the incumbent’s “showmanship.”Gregg Vigliotti for The New York TimesMr. Latimer tread carefully around many of those fault lines as he outlined his candidacy this week, insisting that he was preparing for a campaign that would go well beyond the issue of Israel.Mr. Latimer, in his second term as county executive, urged voters not to judge him on his age, 70, or the color of his skin. Citing his four decades in elected office, he said would continue many of the progressive priorities on housing, climate change and transportation that Mr. Bowman has championed. And he avoided outright attacks on the incumbent beyond charging that Mr. Bowman was more interested in making his name than tending to his district.“If you ignore that turf because you’re a national figure and more interested in being on the national stage, then you are neglecting the needs of that community,” Mr. Latimer said.The challenge comes at a moment of profound political vulnerability for Mr. Bowman, 47, and not just because of his stance on the war. The congressman is still dealing with the repercussions of pleading guilty in October to pulling a false fire alarm in a House office building. And he has just $185,000 in his campaign account, according to recent filings.AIPAC, which privately offered Mr. Latimer its support months ago, could easily swamp that amount on its own. Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the group, declined to discuss the group’s spending plans this week but denounced Mr. Bowman as a representative of “the anti-Israel extremist fringe.”Mr. Bowman’s advisers and allies say defeating him may be far more difficult than his foes anticipate. Some of the left’s most influential figures were already lining up to fight back, determined to show the staying power of their movement three years after they first helped Mr. Bowman, a former middle school principal, topple a powerful three-decade incumbent, Eliot L. Engel.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Mr. Bowman’s best-known ally, circulated a fund-raising appeal on his behalf. Left-leaning groups, including New York’s Working Families Party and Justice Democrats, have pledged resources. For now, each appear to see value in framing the primary as a conflict as one with pro-Israel special interests, not the county executive.“It’s not a surprise that a super PAC that routinely targets Black members of Congress with primary challenges and is funded by the same Republican megadonors who give millions to election-denying Republicans including Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Ted Cruz have recruited a candidate for this race,” said Emma Simon, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bowman’s campaign.The primary battle is one Democrats had wished to avoid. The party already hopes to flip six Republican-held swing seats in New York next year, which is key to taking back the House majority. Some Democrats have expressed concern that a pro-Israel advertising blitz against Mr. Bowman would inadvertently tarnish the party’s candidates in competitive races in neighboring districts to the north and west.Now that the matchup is underway, though, it poses a quandary for Democratic leaders, particularly Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York.Mr. Jeffries, the top House Democrat, has said he would continue the party’s longstanding policy of supporting incumbents like Mr. Bowman, even if his own views on Israel are more conservative. But Mr. Latimer said he had not received a call from Mr. Jeffries asking him not to run, and the House leader may soon have to decide how hard to fight to protect Mr. Bowman.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.His allies argue that there is good reason to believe many voters agree with his views, but that for many, Israel will not be a decisive issue when they cast their primary ballots next June.About half of voters in the district, which stretches from the north Bronx through many of Westchester’s liberal suburbs, are Black and Latino, according to census data. The figure is even higher among Democratic primary voters. By comparison, about 10 percent of all voters and about 20 to 25 percent of Democratic primary voters are Jewish.Mr. Bowman has repeatedly said he is standing by his position on Israel for a simpler reason: He believes in it.Mr. Bowman has refused to tone down his advocacy despite growing pressure from Jewish constituents and fellow Democrats.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesHe summarized his views outside the White House last week, where he joined protesters calling on President Biden to support a bilateral cease-fire. He used terms that most Democrats have objected to, including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing,” in describing Israel’s deadly bombardment of Gaza, which has killed some 15,000 people, according to the local health authorities. He accused the United States of “being complicit” in those deaths. But he also condemned those targeting Israelis or Jews and repeated his earlier denunciations of Hamas.“Calling for cease-fire does not mean we support Hamas, does not mean we support the killing of Israelis or Jews, does not mean we support antisemitism,” he said. “We are calling for cease-fire because we don’t want anyone else to die.”In the interview, Mr. Latimer said he, too, was eager to see the bloodshed in Gaza end, but only after Hamas returned the remaining Israeli hostages it abducted on Oct. 7 and agreed “to step aside from violence.” Anything short of that would amount to unilateral disarmament by Israel, he argued.Mr. Latimer said he did not “know enough” to judge whether Israel’s counteroffensive had violated international law. “I’m not a secretary of state,” he said.He also rejected Mr. Bowman’s proposal for the United States to place conditions on the billions of military aid it provides to Israel. “That is a matter that I think is best left to the presidential administration,” Mr. Latimer said.He was more pointed about attempts by Mr. Bowman and his allies to build public pressure on Mr. Biden through protests and media appearances. Mr. Latimer called Mr. Bowman’s appearance outside the White House “the classic response of somebody who has been in government a couple of years.”“If you want to influence the policy of the president, you begin with the dialogue you have with your other members of Democratic Caucus,” he said. “When you have a consensus movement, that becomes more impressive to an executive.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Primary Fight Brews Over Jamaal Bowman’s Stance on Israel

      by

      Representative Jamaal Bowman’s calls for Israel to stand down on Gaza may fuel a perilous primary challenge for one of the left’s brightest stars.Representative Jamaal Bowman was already facing blowback from Jewish leaders in his district and a growing primary threat for bucking his party’s stance on Israel.But on Friday, he did not show any hesitation as he grabbed the megaphone at a cease-fire rally back home in the New York City suburbs to demand what only a dozen other members of Congress have: that both Israel and Hamas lay down their arms.He condemned Hamas’s brutal murder of 1,400 Israelis. He condemned the governments of the United States and Israel for facilitating what he called the “erasure” of Palestinian lives. And with Palestinian flags waving, Mr. Bowman said, “I am ashamed, quite ashamed to be a member of Congress at times when Congress doesn’t value every single life.”Forget about retreating to safer political ground. In the weeks since Hamas’s assault, Mr. Bowman, an iconoclastic former middle-school principal with scant foreign policy experience, has repeatedly inserted himself into the center of a major fight fracturing his party’s left between uncompromising pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian factions.Mr. Bowman frames his actions as a moral imperative, but they are already courting political peril. Local Jewish leaders have denounced his approach as blaming both sides for the gravest attack against their people since the Holocaust. A potentially formidable primary challenger, George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, has begun taking steps toward entering the race.Even some Jewish supporters publicly defending Mr. Bowman have grown wary. When a group of constituents who call themselves “Jews for Jamaal” held a private call with the congressman last week, they warned him he should be prepared to pay a political price if he does not support a multibillion-dollar military aid package for Israel now pending before Congress, according to three people on the call.Similar coalitions are lining up primary fights across the country against other members of Democrats’ left-wing “Squad” over their views on Israel, including Representatives Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Cori Bush of Missouri and Summer Lee of Pennsylvania.But perhaps no race promises to be so explosive, expensive or symbolically charged a test of the Democratic Party’s direction as a potential matchup between Mr. Bowman and Mr. Latimer.Mr. Bowman won his seat three years ago by defeating the staunchly pro-Israel chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot L. Engel, in a primary. And the district he represents is home both to one of the best-organized Jewish communities in the country and a nonwhite majority who sees him as a paragon of progressive Black leadership.The anger toward Mr. Bowman could scarcely have come at a worse time for him. Just last Thursday, he pleaded guilty to setting off a false fire alarm in a House office building as he raced to a vote last month. To avoid jail time, he agreed to pay a $1,000 fine and apologize.Mr. Bowman’s allies — including many Jewish ones — insist his position on the Israel-Hamas war will be vindicated. They argue that he is speaking for many of the district’s Black and Latino voters who identify with the plight of Palestinians, and that he is voicing the conflicting views of many American Jews.“He is not ‘anti-Israel,’ and to refer to him that way is to deliberately distort his record, which includes many votes in favor of military and economic aid to Israel,” 40 members of the Jews for Jamaal group wrote in a recent letter warning Mr. Latimer that a primary would be “needlessly wasteful and terribly divisive.”On the call with the group earlier this month, Mr. Bowman framed his position as a matter of personal conviction. He said he would never be Representative Ritchie Torres, a staunchly pro-Israel Democrat who represents a neighboring district. But he also said it was unfair to lump him together with lawmakers like Ms. Tlaib or Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who have taken far more antagonistic stances toward Israel.Unlike them, Mr. Bowman has voted in the past to help fund Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. In late 2021, he traveled to Israel on a trip organized by J Street, a mainstream liberal pro-Israel advocacy group that still backs him. Both actions drew sharp blowback from allies on the left and prompted Mr. Bowman to quit the Democratic Socialists of America.In a statement, Mr. Bowman said that he would “always stand with the Jewish community” but also would work to bridge differences among his constituents, the majority of whom remain more focused on issues like health care and gun safety.The district, which includes more than half of Westchester County, is about 50 percent Black and Latino, according to census data; studies suggest around 10 percent of residents are Jewish, though Jews probably make up two to three times that share of the Democratic primary electorate.“True security for everyone in the region begins with the de-escalation of violence, which means the immediate release of hostages taken by Hamas, a cease-fire, humanitarian aid to Israel and Gaza,” and avoiding military escalation, Mr. Bowman said.Since Hamas’s attack, though, some Jewish leaders in Westchester said Mr. Bowman has been too quick to move past the carnage overseas and growing fears about antisemitism closer to home. They took particular offense last week when he was one of just 10 House lawmakers to vote against a bipartisan resolution standing with Israel.The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby that has spent millions of dollars targeting Mr. Bowman’s left-leaning allies in recent cycles, has privately offered its support to Mr. Latimer. So have local business leaders who detest Mr. Bowman’s critiques of capitalism and his vote against President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure bill.And two dozen local rabbis have condemned his calls for a cease-fire as “a position of appeasement toward Hamas’s terror regime.”“Since being elected, Bowman has led the effort to erode support for Israel on Capitol Hill and within the Democratic Party,” they wrote in a recent letter urging Mr. Latimer to run.George Latimer, the Westchester County executive, has been encouraged by a pro-Israel group to challenge Mr. Bowman.Jonah Markowitz for The New York TimesIn an interview, Mr. Latimer, 69, said he would wait until mid November to announce his plans. But he described watching with growing alarm as protesters shaking college campuses cleave his party and, in his view, abandon Jewish Americans.“There are people in my county who are solid progressive Democrats,” said Mr. Latimer, who is Catholic. “But they also support the State of Israel, and they are frustrated that there is an element of the left that doesn’t see the historic oppression of the Jewish people in the same light as we’ve seen oppression of other groups.”Hours after Mr. Bowman spoke on Friday at the rally — organized by Jewish Voice for Peace, a Jewish anti-Zionist group — Mr. Latimer stood at the bimah of Kol Ami in White Plains to offer his unequivocal support to the Jewish congregation. He did not mention Mr. Bowman but drew subtle distinctions.“It was not some event that happened because of years of something else,” he said of Hamas’s attack. “It was the express hatred of Hamas toward Jewish people because they do not want Jewish people to live.”Mr. Bowman, for his part, has yet to visit a synagogue since the attack. His office indicated it is planning a series of meetings focused on strategies to combat hate.Mr. Latimer appears to have picked up at least one influential Democratic supporter even before entering the race.In an interview, Mr. Engel said he had resisted publicly criticizing Mr. Bowman since his defeat so as not to look bitter. But he said his successor had been an “embarrassment” who was “particularly awful” on Israel.“George is a class act; he works hard and he would really attempt to represent the people,” he said. “Whereas Bowman is more comfortable demonstrating, picketing and pulling fire alarms.” More

    • 150 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      With Allies Nearby, Hochul and Zeldin Try to Spur Voters to Polls

      by

      With eight days until Election Day, the candidates in New York’s governors race are hoping popular politicians can help them drum up support from their bases.With the race for governor of New York closer than expected, the two candidates on Monday put their strategies and proxies front and center: Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican, held a campaign rally with Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, and Gov. Kathy Hochul appeared with a pair of Black and Latino Democratic lawmakers.For Mr. Zeldin, the rally in Westchester County served to remind voters of Mr. Youngkin’s victory last year, seen by some Republicans as a kind of how-to for conservatives in left-leaning states.For Ms. Hochul, the appearance underscored her need to stir up enthusiasm among Black and Latino populations she is eager to draw to the polls.Speaking at the Madison Square Boys & Girls Club in Harlem alongside Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Adriano Espaillat, Ms. Hochul focused heavily on gun control and public safety, as she sought to address Mr. Zeldin’s campaign emphasis on crime, which has helped him gain traction with voters.Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin with Lee Zeldin at a Get Out the Vote Rally in Thornwood Monday. Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesAs anti-violence activists and parents who have lost children to gun violence stood nearby, the governor spoke about legislation she championed to help stop the flow of illegal firearms into New York. She accused Mr. Zeldin of failing to back up his rhetoric on public safety with a clear plan.She asserted that Mr. Zeldin supported plans that would help more guns come into the state, including arming school safety officers and possibly teachers with weapons, ideas she denounced as “absurd” and “insanity.”“Don’t come here today and tell us that you’ve got a tough on crime plan that’s just soft and squishy on guns,” Ms. Hochul said.Some 20 miles to the north, Mr. Zeldin accused Ms. Hochul of ignoring a “crime emergency” in the state and urged voters in liberal New York to place their personal views above party identity.“This isn’t about Republicans verse Democrats, this is about all of us together,” Mr. Zeldin said. “Republicans, Democrats and independents uniting as New Yorkers to save our state.”Recent polls have suggested Ms. Hochul, seeking her first full term as governor, is leading in the race. But support for Mr. Zeldin has grown, particularly as public safety has become a top concern for voters.The governor’s campaign has shifted in response. Though Ms. Hochul had earlier focused her pitch to voters on abortion rights, and tying Mr. Zeldin to his party’s extremist flank, she has since broadened her message.As part of this change, Ms. Hochul’s campaign released a new television ad on Monday that focused on public safety. The ad emphasized gun control laws that she signed in June, and her successful effort to tighten New York’s bail laws.Bruce Gyory, a Democratic strategist, said Ms. Hochul’s focus on guns as the cause of crime made sense.“The gun safety issue is a major issue that unites suburban women and inner-city women,” Mr. Gyory said. “I think that’s a strong hook to hang your hat on, so to speak, for her.”Ms. Hochul’s event on Monday is one of several that she is expected to hold in the city in the next eight days as she seeks to boost turnout, particularly from Black and Latino voters whom New York Democrats have long relied on.Monday Mr. Bowman, who represents the northern Bronx and southern Westchester, accused Mr. Zeldin of “fear mongering.” He criticized the Republican for not voting in Congress to support legislation addressing gun violence and gun safety.Mayor Eric Adams alongside Governor Kathy Hochul in Queens Sunday. Johnny Milano for The New York TimesMr. Espaillat, whose district includes parts of Upper Manhattan and Harlem, criticized Mr. Zeldin for not being present in the communities most affected by the surge in violence that has been at the center of his campaign.“Where is Lee when two young men confront each other with handguns on a weekend night?” Mr. Espaillat said.Hours later, Mr. Zeldin was with Mr. Youngkin, addressing a cheering crowd of hundreds outside the American Legion in Thornwood, N.Y. His focus was on his anti-crime platform, and he repeated promises to roll back New York’s bail laws, and fire Manhattan’s district attorney.Mr. Youngkin, a rising figure in the Republican Party, commended Mr. Zeldin for putting Democrats on edge in a state whose electoral fealty they had largely taken for granted.“The momentum is building like they can’t believe. You can see them all of a sudden go from cocky to scared, it happens just like that,” Mr. Youngkin said, comparing Mr. Zeldin’s campaign to the one that saw him become governor last year in Virginia, a state that President Biden won handily in 2020 and where Democrats had built increasing support.Mr. Youngkin also carefully courted suburban voters who turned away from the Republican Party under former President Donald J. Trump, keeping the former president at a distance during his campaign yet being careful not to criticize him. Mr. Youngkin also downplayed his opposition to abortion, focusing instead on inflation, safety, and how race and equity are discussed in schools.Mr. Zeldin has tried to manage the same balance in his campaign, particularly as he tries to pick off moderate voters in the suburbs.Rosemary Eshghi, 68, of Chappaqua, N.Y., said that she used to be a Democrat but was now part of a group called Republican Women of Westchester. She came to the rally because she appreciated Mr. Youngkin’s views on schools, which she believed Mr. Zeldin was aligned with.Her vote, she said, would go to the Republican ticket, in part because Ms. Hochul “does not represent those ideals that I believed in 30 years ago. I left the party, and she’s totally inviting chaos.”But Andrew Lynch, 64, of New Rochelle, who said that he used to be a registered Republican but was no longer affiliated with the party, would not be voting for Mr. Zeldin, in part because the Jan. 6 Capitol riot convinced him that Republicans were trampling on the rule of law.He was at the rally, he said, to see Mr. Zeldin and Mr. Youngkin up close and to “see if it’s as horrible as I think it is when you’re actually live and in person.” More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The New York Primary Being Watched by A.O.C., Pelosi and the Clintons

      by

      Big Democratic names have lined up on both sides of the heated battle between Representative Sean Patrick Maloney and his progressive challenger, State Senator Alessandra Biaggi.SHRUB OAK, N.Y. — Less than three months before the November midterm elections, the man tasked with protecting the imperiled Democratic House majority was contemplating a more immediate challenge: securing his own political survival in a primary contest this week.“How am I doing on the vote?” Representative Sean Patrick Maloney of New York asked a voter as he worked a barbecue here last Wednesday afternoon, dousing a hot dog in mustard and relish and commiserating with older attendees about impatiently awaiting the birth of grandchildren.“I see your commercial every 10 seconds,” the voter told him.New York’s tumultuous primary season, which draws to a close on Tuesday, has no shortage of hard-fought, high-drama contests. But because of Mr. Maloney’s standing as the chair of the House Democratic campaign arm — and given the cast of prominent politicians who have gotten involved in the race — perhaps no New York primary is of greater national consequence than the battle for the newly redrawn 17th District, which includes parts of Westchester County and the Hudson Valley.Mr. Maloney, backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Bill Clinton, is fending off a primary challenge from State Senator Alessandra Biaggi, a left-leaning lawmaker who defeated a powerful incumbent in 2018, and now has the support of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a panoply of progressive organizations.Mr. Maloney, on a recent visit to a senior housing community, explained how President Biden’s climate, tax and health care law would affect prescription drug costs.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesBy every standard metric — fund-raising, television presence, available polling, endorsements and the assessments of several local elected officials — Mr. Maloney heads into Primary Day with a strong advantage. But New Yorkers are unaccustomed to voting in August, and low-turnout elections can be especially unpredictable. On the ground, it is apparent that a contested race shaped by ideological, generational and stylistic tensions is underway. The winner is expected to face a competitive general election challenge from emboldened Republicans this fall.“Maloney might be more of my choice just because I’m a fan of Bill’s,” said Tim Duch, 71, referencing the former president whose Chappaqua home is in the new district (Hillary Clinton, who helped lead Ms. Biaggi’s wedding ceremony, has stayed on the sidelines). Nodding to Mr. Clinton’s comment that Mr. Maloney has won competitive races, he added, “I think that’s what Bill Clinton was saying, that he’s more winnable.”Mr. Duch was standing outside a bookstore on Tarrytown’s cafe-lined Main Street with his wife, Lee Eiferman, on Wednesday morning when Ms. Biaggi walked by.“Energy,” Ms. Eiferman, 68, observed after Ms. Biaggi greeted them effusively. Referencing criticism she had heard about Ms. Biaggi concerning her law enforcement stance, Ms. Eiferman added: “She’s for women’s issues, and everything that she’s getting shish-kebabbed on, I’d say bring it on.”Ms. Biaggi, greeting a supporter, Mackenzie Roussos, has argued that voters want a fighter.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesThe contours of the race were set in motion after a messy redistricting process this spring that split Mr. Maloney’s current district in two. Instead of running for a reconfigured version of his current seat, Mr. Maloney opted to contest a slightly more Democratic-leaning district now represented by a Black Democrat, Mondaire Jones, who aligns with the party’s progressive wing.Though Mr. Maloney noted that his Cold Spring home was within the new lines, it set off a nasty brawl. Furious colleagues cast it as a power grab, and Mr. Jones ended up packing his bags for New York City, where sparse public polling now shows him trailing in a race for an open House seat there.Mr. Maloney has acknowledged that he could have handled the process better, and a number of lawmakers who sharply criticized him at the time no longer appear interested in discussing the subject.But Mr. Maloney, 56, has long been regarded as an ambitious political operator, and some hard feelings remain.National tensions were compounded when the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee elevated a far-right candidate in a Republican primary in Michigan, a move that was sharply criticized by many as hypocritical and dangerous. (Mr. Maloney has defended it by noting his party’s improved prospects in the general election there.)Ms. Biaggi, 36, has seized on both dynamics to lash Mr. Maloney as a notably self-interested politician who does not grasp the urgency of the moment. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      The New York Times’s Interview With Alessandra Biaggi

      by

      Alessandra Biaggi is a New York State senator who has represented parts of the Bronx and Westchester County since 2019.This interview with Ms. Biaggi was conducted by the editorial board of The New York Times on July 27.Read the board’s endorsement for the Democratic congressional primary for New York’s 17th District here.Kathleen Kingsbury: I understand you have to reject the premise of this question —Sure.Kathleen Kingsbury: — to begin with. But I hope you would talk a little bit about what you think you’d be able to accomplish in a Republican-controlled Congress, and be as specific as possible, but also if there’s one big idea that you’d pursue on a bipartisan basis.Sure. So, OK, I think that — let me answer the question in reverse. I think the idea that I would want to pursue on a bipartisan basis is with regard to ethics reform and accountability. I’m very focused on institutional reform of Congress, of the Supreme Court, of our institutions. We have rules to allow us to change the way that these systems work, and we’ve got to actually use them. So I’m very committed to that.And specifically, what I think we could accomplish on a bipartisan scale is banning trading stocks among members.It’s really important to me that we do that for a lot of obvious reasons, but most importantly because we have to rebuild the trust of the people who elect us. And I think that our trust is — it’s a cliché thing to say — but it’s at an all-time low. And I don’t want it to be there, and it can’t be there if we actually are going to be able to build a strong future and pass policies that people believe actually fight for them.So that’s that on that part of the question. But in the minority, as a minority member, I think that there is a very long and strong history of dissent being powerful in just the way that we shape movements, the way that we shape policy agendas. And so I am — probably everyone knows this — but I’m a very outspoken, bold leader.And I think it’s important that we have people who have a strategy, who are able to think about the ways in which the Democratic Party can become stronger so that we can ultimately be in the majority. But then, also, there are more specific things. If you’re on a committee, there’s oversight roles. There’s the ability to make amendments. There’s motions to recommit.There are ways to learn the rules of how Congress works that we can use to be able to exert our power. And most importantly, even if we don’t succeed in the amendment we want or the thing that we want, at least we are showing the people that have elected us that we are fighting for them, and fighting really hard, and using our power. And that is, I think, one of the most important things that we have to do as leaders.Mara Gay: Senator, inflation is hitting all Americans hard. But in your district in the tristate area, in those northern suburbs, the cost of housing is an increasingly difficult concern, especially at this point in the pandemic. What would you do as a member of Congress to ease that burden?OK, so there are a few things that I would do with regard to housing. The first one is I would build more of it. It is really important that, when it comes to inflation, that we understand as leaders that the aggregate demand which outstrips the aggregate supply is part of why we have inflation.And so one of the ways we can get at that is we can allow for affordable housing, transit-oriented housing. And the more housing that we build, even in middle-class and upper-middle-class neighborhoods, the more we will be able to drive down those costs.But, in addition to that, I think what Congress can do is put funding into the programs that already exist. So, Section 8 housing is one of the areas I’m really focused on. And the reason for that is because, No. 1, it’s an area where we do not fully fund it in this country. And so of all the people who apply, only a fourth of the people are able to get it, No. 1.And No. 2, it’s not an entitlement. So the fact that there are three-fourths of people who are applying but can’t get access to it is one of the main drivers —Brent Staples: Who are eligible. Those are eligible people.They’re eligible, exactly. And they can’t get access to it. And so what happens? They either become unhoused, or they live in their cars, or they try their best to continue to go to work every day and do what they can.And so housing, to me, is one of the — if I think about what makes a person able to live with dignity, housing, having schools that are excellent, fully funded, being able to have access to health care and also making sure that they have good, well-paying jobs, these are the things that will allow for someone to thrive. And by basically stripping the ability for people to be able to access the programs that exist, it causes harm.But one other thing in the Section 8 housing that I just want to mention is the ability for individuals to have the opportunity to be placed into middle-income and other areas, because it shows that even if it costs more on the front end to invest from the government side, these are individuals who have opportunities later that are more economically prosperous. And then that means that they will also contribute to society in a way that benefits themselves, and also the entire country.Kathleen Kingsbury: Thank you. What do you think Democrats should do to secure voting rights and to protect democracy in general?Everything that they can do. And that includes not just putting their names on bills, which I think is a very bare-minimum use of our power. I think it also means using the courts. I think it means not being afraid of having bills go up and fail or being challenged in the judiciary.I will say that in 2020, myself and Mondaire Jones were able to sue Donald Trump and the postmaster general because they were, as you probably remember, removing the mailboxes and the sorting machines. And they were telling the [postal] workers that they couldn’t have presumptive overtime.And that was the first time for me, as a legislator, that I realized my job is not just to pass legislation. It’s also to use the power of the courts and to think about how we can actually use that power. And we won.And so that, to me, is one of the other things that we can do. It also, I think, requires us to organize. I think that in this party, one of the things that we lack is a long-term strategy that the other side has.And it’s very simple. It doesn’t have to be complicated. It’s literally going state to state — in a state like New York, just to be very specific — having a strong state party chair that meets with the county chairs once a month, but then those county chairs meet with the local chairs once a month.And at the beginning of every year, you have a goal of: We can flip one county “leg” seat. We can flip one congressional seat. We can — all in the effort to actually be able to secure voting rights and voting initiatives that are on the constitutional ballot. Yes?Patrick Healy: Senator, do you think Democratic elected officials are out of step with Democratic voters on immigration, on L.G.B.T.Q. rights, on any issue in particular now, just in terms of —Can I ask a clarifying question on that?Patrick Healy: Sure.So do you mean specifically on how they fight or in the bills that they put up?Patrick Healy: I think it can be more messaging, in terms of language, sometimes priority setting. But really, it’s your call, anything you see as just not syncing.OK. Well, I think that we definitely, we have a come-to-Jesus moment in our party here to choose a different playbook of how we lead. And that is not just for L.G.B.T.Q. issues. And what was the other issue that you said?Patrick Healy: Immigration.Immigration issues. It really is for all issues. But specifically on those two issues, I think that part of why we might not have support even from people in our own party is because we don’t always go into the rooms with people who might not either understand the policies that we’re trying to pass or [might] be angry about the policies that we’re trying to pass.And as a result of avoiding those kinds of conversations and organizing, which is a key role of building power, I think we leave people behind. And then they feel like, well, I don’t understand the changes that are happening in the world. And my leaders didn’t come to speak to me about it. So I’m now going to have resentment toward them. And I feel like you do that so often, and it’s an unforced error, that we can be so much better at.Eleanor Randolph: So, Senator, we have a few yes-or-no questions.Sure.Eleanor Randolph: And we’d appreciate just yes or no as answers.OK.Eleanor Randolph: The first one is, would you support expanding the Supreme Court?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: Would you support ending the filibuster?Yes.Eleanor Randolph: What about term limits for members of Congress?That one I am — I tilt yes. And the reason is —Eleanor Randolph: Tilt.Tilt yes because I don’t know the magic number.Eleanor Randolph: All right. So —Yes. I would say yes. Yes, yes.Eleanor Randolph: OK. What about an age limit for members of Congress?Well, we have mandatory retirements on the judiciary, so I can’t imagine why we wouldn’t apply that standard to all of the other parts of our government. So yes.Eleanor Randolph: Yes. And should President Biden run again?Maybe. I’m sorry.[The room laughs.]Kathleen Kingsbury: It’s a one-word answer.I think it’s too early to determine. Maybe.Eleanor Randolph: OK, thank you, Senator.You’re welcome.Alex Kingsbury: I’d like to ask about Ukraine. And I wonder if you think there should be an upper limit for the amount of taxpayer dollars we spend on the war there, and if we should attach any sort of conditions to the continued spending that we’re sending overseas.OK, so I will start by saying that I think the — so I respect President Biden’s efforts to, first and foremost, exercise all diplomatic measures right before having sanctions put into place. I also think that democratic countries across the world that are invaded and that are our allies, absolutely, with our allies, deserve to have the aid and support that they need to minimize loss of life and casualties. So I support that.I am cautious of any kind of action that will bring our military into an additional conflict. And so, just to fully answer your question, I think the answer is that — the answer is yes. We cannot fund in perpetuity, but I don’t think that we have to because we have other countries that are allied with us that are also contributing to the aid to Ukraine.Now, I say this, obviously, not having the privilege of being there, but also, looking at all of the images and watching and listening to what’s going on, it’s an atrocity. It’s outrageous. And it’s also dangerous, because it’s not just about loss of life, which is the most important casualty of this war. But it’s also because Ukraine is one of the largest distributors — exporters of grain. And so this is absolutely on the verge of risking famine across the globe.So we’ve got to stop that. And I’m not sure that I have all the answers for that. But I hope that satisfies, at least, your question.Nick Fox: Could you say what you think Democrats can do about climate change in the face of Republican opposition and opposition from the Supreme Court?[The Senate passed the climate, health and tax bill on Aug. 7 and the House on Aug. 12, both after this interview took place.]The first thing that we can do is, as a party, put a line in the sand about taking money from the fossil fuel industry. I think it’s one of the most important signals that we can send to people that, whether we’re in the majority or in the minority, that we are serious about climate change.I also think that having investments in things like electrifying the grid, hydro, solar, geothermal, wind, making sure that we are also not leaving people behind who work in other industries that might get — not priced out, but eliminated, because their industry has become moot — is an important part of allowing us to bring people along for the ride, so work force development.But we can also do something that I have done in New York, which I’m really proud of, which is to think about other industries that have not been regulated. The fashion industry is one of those industries. I introduced a bill called the Fashion Act. The main goal of the bill is to drive down the global greenhouse gas emissions that the fashion industry contributes to worldwide every year, which is about 8 percent.And so we can look at other industries in addition to energy, and think about how we can basically have an all-hands-on-deck approach and get at this from creative ways as well.Mara Gay: Thanks. Is there any further action that Congress can take on gun violence?There is so many things that Congress can do on gun violence. They can ban ghost guns. They can have an assault weapons ban, which is not a crazy thing to say, because we had one until we didn’t.We can also fully fund our anti-violence programs because when it comes to gun violence, one of the things that I think all members of Congress need to do, collectively, is to talk about gun violence and public safety, not just from the perspective of after the gun goes off or after something happens, but also what can we do to prevent it.And so being able to understand that communities are safe when people are fully — when people are housed, when schools are fully funded, when we have after-school programs — when we actually do fund those anti-violence programs that are interrupters for violence is important. But both parts of the puzzle have to exist for us to actually have a comprehensive plan to be able to solve for this.Mara Gay: Thank you. And you’ve been quite active on protecting abortion rights in the State Senate. What would you do in Congress —Everything.Mara Gay: That you think can get done?Anything and everything. So, first and foremost, I think that we have to codify Roe. And I wish that we did it 50 years ago, but we didn’t. And so we’ve got to do that.The second thing I think we can do is we can think about making sure that we are using federal dollars for states that still have abortion legal to be able to provide additional funding — that states are already — providing for different clinics and services, and also from people who are traveling to states like New York, like we’ve done here, who are going to — who want those services, so putting those funds into abortion access funds, for lack of a better word.We can also do things like look at … what is the role of the F.D.A.? Currently, abortion pills are on something called the REMS list, which is a list that basically makes it harder for the pills to be accessed by people. It’s the same list that opioids are on. And it is outrageous we don’t just remove it.And so I wrote a letter with my colleagues in the Senate, in the State Senate, to send to the F.D.A. to request that this happens. We haven’t heard back yet. But the point is that we have to think about it not just from the codification or from the organizing perspective but also from the agency perspective, and to push on our leaders to not be afraid to, No. 1, fail — because we might — but also to be able to show urgency around the things that matter and not respond to things like this, or rights being taken away, with fund-raising emails.[Brent Staples laughs.]Kathleen Kingsbury: What should Congress do to address the increasing threat —Brent Staples: Excuse me. I’m sorry. I take that back. [Laughs harder.]It’s OK.Kathleen Kingsbury: What should Congress do to address the increasing threat of domestic terrorism?Well, not what we have done in the N.Y.P.D., which is oversurveillance and targeting of certain groups simply because they fit a certain profile. I think that we have to — let me think about this. I want to be really thoughtful about this.OK, I think that the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. and all of our intelligence agencies working together is a key part of this. I think that making sure that these agencies are strong enough to intercept any kind of potential threats or current threats is a key piece of this.And part of what frustrates me the most — and we see this more with domestic terrorists — is that there are so many signs on the internet of someone making threats, whether it’s in certain chat rooms or using certain social media platforms. And yet they’re not interrupted as often as they should be. And so I think that’s a key role.I also want to just say that I care very much about all of our privacy. And the oversurveillance is something we always have to balance when it comes to the surveillance of reducing threat. But I do think that’s a key role.Mara Gay: Senator, we ask a lightning round question —OK, let’s do it.Mara Gay: For a little quiz. First question is, how does Plan B work?Plan B — OK, right. So that is the morning-after pill. So Plan B is a pill that stops ovulation from happening.Mara Gay: Yes, that’s correct.Yes.Mara Gay: Do you own a gun?I do not.Mara Gay: Have you ever shot a gun?I have.Mara Gay: In what context?It was in a shooting range, and it was the only time. And I did not enjoy the way that it felt.Mara Gay: How long ago was that?It was — let’s see, maybe it was 2018.Mara Gay: OK. What is the average age of a member of Congress?Let me think about this for one second — certainly older than 36. [Laughs.] I would say probably like 56 or 57.Mara Gay: Fifty-eight. Close. Senator?Average age of senators? Well, we have Grassley, who’s almost 90. [Laughs.] And that drives up the median. Sixty-two?Mara Gay: Sixty-four. Close. Please name a member of Congress, dead or living, whom you most admire and would potentially emulate yourself after if elected.Katie Porter.Mara Gay: All right. And what is your favorite restaurant in your district?The Outpost.Mara Gay: OK. Thank you.Kathleen Kingsbury: You don’t actually currently live in the 17th District, correct?I’m about to, as soon as I leave here. We’re actually signing the paperwork at 3:30 today.Kathleen Kingsbury: OK.Yeah, so I live in Westchester County. I’m a Westchester native. We’re moving a little bit north, to North Castle. So —Kathleen Kingsbury: Do you think you’ll be able to properly represent the district despite only having moved there?I do, I do. As a member of the State Senate, I am part of the Westchester County delegation. I also am — thankfully, because I’m part of a Democratic conference that has people from across the state — I also have colleagues from Rockland County and Putnam who overlap with Westchester, and Dutchess as well, that I have been able to learn a lot from, especially in Rockland County and Putnam County. Whether it’s issues around, like, the well water or issues around transportation as it relates to Rockland County, these are things that I have been working on with my colleagues but also have been exposed to and fighting with them in the delegation for.Patrick Healy: What do you consider your greatest accomplishment in your time in the State Legislature?Reviving the Senate Ethics Committee, absolutely. It was a committee that — can I answer —Patrick Healy: Please.So it was a committee that had only met two times in 10 years before I was elected. And when I was elected, I expressed to the leadership that I wanted to take on this committee. There was almost an immediate response of: Why in the world would you want this committee? This committee does nothing. And I said, “That’s exactly why I want this committee.”And so on the first day that we were sworn in, I changed the rules of the committee that we could be able to have bills come through it and also hold hearings. That led us to be able to have the first hearing on sexual harassment in Albany in 27 years, which led to the passage, of course, of some of the strongest anti-sexual-harassment, anti-discrimination laws in the country. And then we did other hearings on ethics and also violence in — excuse me, sexual violence in correctional facilities.Now the committee meets every month, excuse me, sorry.Kathleen Kingsbury: One more question.Jyoti Thottam: Yeah. So in the past, you said you supported the defund the police movement. Do you still support that? And what would you say to voters in your district who are concerned about crime or just feel unsafe?So I want you all to know that I care a lot about public safety. And a huge part of my leadership has been around making our criminal justice system fairer as well as balancing the rights of the victims of crimes. Specifically, my work has been around sexual violence.When I tweeted that, it was absolutely — it was an act of solidarity. But it also felt like a response to the moment that was occurring in this country, which is, in my opinion, one of the most outrageous things I’ve ever seen as an adult, which was a Black man literally being murdered on video.And I think the reason why I don’t use [that term] anymore and only used it in that period of time is because what I have learned is that the language is unworkable. It scrambles people’s brains in a way that does not allow them to hear what else I have to say. I am committed to what is behind it, which is police reform, police accountability, making sure that we are really thoughtful about how we can address police brutality in this country, because it’s not a new problem. And yet we haven’t really made a significant amount of progress.There are police departments across the country — very seldom, very few ones, Camden, New Jersey, being one of them, where they actually have reformed the police. And —Brent Staples: Look what it took down there, though.What’s that?Brent Staples: Look what it took.A tremendous effort. They overcame tremendous amounts of pushback. And New York is no different from that. Our police unions are very strong and very vocal and, any time we’ve done anything, have had so much pushback.But there’s not a system on Earth, including the Legislature, but especially policing, that can’t be made better. Policing is absolutely one of them. And I’m committed to that. And I’m committed to it not just because I care about the systems being better, but also because I grew up in a law enforcement family. I understand the risks that they take every day. But I also understand that they are public servants too, and that we have a role in making them better.Jyoti Thottam: So has your position actually changed over time?Well, I don’t use the language anymore, if that’s the question that you’re asking. But I think it’s important that every single agency or quasi-agency of the government that is funded by taxpayer dollars absolutely deserves to be looked at. And that includes — again, I put myself in this category every time, because I don’t want it to seem like I’m exempting those of us who are in the Legislature.If we fail to do our job or don’t do our job to 100 percent of what we’re called to do, then we should have our budget taken a look at as well. And so in the N.Y.P.D. — I believe it was in 2021 — the statistics showed that 30 percent — and I might invert them just because my brain might do that. But 30 percent of shootings, violent shootings, were solved, and 40 percent of rapes were solved.But I want those numbers to be 100 percent. Those are things that are important to me. And if it means taking police out of responding to mental health crises or to the homelessness crisis, then we have to re-scope them and make it so that they are actually responding to the things that do make our communities safer, and also reducing police brutality.Patrick Healy: Many of the communities that you now run in represent the new district and are considered politically moderate. You have a strong record as a progressive.Yes.Patrick Healy: Why are you the right person to represent those voters in those kinds of northern New York suburbs?So I want to just also start by saying that a lot — so about 37 percent or so of the district identifies as progressive, and a little bit more identifies as moderately progressive. And so why I know I can represent this district and why I can appeal to them is because I have a record of delivering. And it’s not just on things that I think people would consider to be progressive.It’s for all people, for middle-class families, for working families. I also am a reformer. And one of the things that I think is really important for you all to know is that when I’m knocking on doors, which I do every weekend, or making phone calls to people in the district, the thing that I hear the most is that people are truly sick and tired of self-serving elected officials across the entire spectrum.And I can say across the entire political spectrum with confidence, because when I knock on the door, I don’t always get the Democrat on the other side of the door. The dad might be a Republican, and he might be very happy to share that opinion with me. And the one thing that’s common amongst people is that feeling. And that’s something that I think I embody the opposite of.I think that I have proven through my record, but also, really, through my ability to tell people the truth about what’s going on inside of their institutions, which has given people the desire to trust that I’m somebody who has their backs.I will just have one anecdote, if I can, about … in 2020, when I was running for re-election in the State Senate, I, after the election was over, had several phone calls from Republicans in my district who called the office to say, “We don’t agree with her on basically anything, but we voted for her because she was outspoken about what was going on in our nursing homes. And that proved to me that she cared about my loved ones and the people in nursing homes that might not have been taken care of or kept safe.”And so that just signaled to me that, again, people, I think, are willing to look past some of the differences that we have if they feel like the person that’s representing them is a fighter, is someone that represents a different kind of leadership and is loyal first and foremost to them.Mara Gay: I just wanted to ask you, how are you going to overcome your opponent’s advantage, his name recognition in this district, his fund-raising? How many doors have you knocked on? What is your pathway to victory?OK. So the best way that I can overcome being an underdog — which I am very used to doing, I was an underdog in 2018, I’ve been an underdog every time I’ve taken on a really powerful interest or even our former governor — when I spoke out against him. I don’t think there’s anybody who has more — who had more power or money than him.And the best way that I can just describe the pathway to victory is by fighting for every single inch. So I have personally knocked on several hundred doors. We have knocked on over 3,000 doors. We’ve made over 45,000 phone calls into the district. We have sent thousands of postcards.And so what we have in people — through grassroots organizing, through people who don’t even identify as grassroots organizers but are new in the political process — what we have in people — excuse me, what he has in dollars, we make up in people. We are not going to raise the same amount of money as him. But we don’t need to. We just need enough money to be able to communicate.And so we have had a mail program that has already started. In fact, we started our mail program before he did. And we did that specifically because we thought that there would be people who did not know me, and I wouldn’t have name recognition in certain areas. So we did an introductory letter.We’ve done five pieces of mail since then. But then I just want you all also to know that a lot of the organizers in this district are part of the race that I ran in 2018, the No I.D.C. race. And so they’re common to a lot of the causes not just in the electoral politics but also then when we got to Albany.So it’s organizing. It’s continuing to raise. It’s continuing for me to be present in the district, to have meet-and-greets. We’ve had people literally go on our website that have never met me before to request to host a meet-and-greet. And every time we do that, we have that multiply into two or three other meet-and-greets. Those are the inches that add up to the wins.And I will just tell you that I am not — I shouldn’t say it this way. Let me say it to the positive. I love to organize. I love to knock on doors because it means something to people. It makes them feel like you actually care about representing them. And that is, to me, the best way that you build trust. But also, that interaction will multiply into that person’s immediate network.And that also has come back for us to have more volunteers. So we also have over 140 volunteers. We have a fellowship program. I believe there are 25 or 30 individuals who are our fellows who have been with us since the beginning of the race.And I’m sure I’m forgetting something. But those are the components that will be part of the pathway to victory.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More