Politics

Goldman and Lander spar hard over Israel

Published

3 months ago

May 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Former city comptroller Brad Lander (left) and Rep. Dan Goldman clash over Israel as Manhattan primary spotlights Democratic divide.

DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 57

BRIDGING THE GAP: The debate over Israel is proving to be a wedge issue in the competitive primary between Rep. Dan Goldman and former city Comptroller Brad Lander. But the incumbent, who’s fighting for his political life, is making the argument that he and his challenger aren’t so different on the issue after all.

“We are both progressive Zionists who believe in Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and we both support a two-state solution to bring peace to the region,” Goldman said earlier today on a WNYC candidate forum. “It’s disappointing to me that he’s using this dog whistle attack, when in reality we really do share the same core principles.”

Lander — who, like Goldman, is Jewish and a Democrat — has positioned himself as more critical of Israel than the incumbent, and some in the party’s progressive wing have sided with him because of it. Lander and his supporters have repeatedly criticized Goldman for his ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel group that has become a major player in elections on both sides of the aisle — and a subject of intense debate — especially as the public has an increasingly negative view of Israel.

Progressives have targeted AIPAC in their messaging, a strategy Lander has also embraced. Goldman “can’t unrig the system because he’s part of this system, he takes money from Wall Street, from private equity, from crypto, from AIPAC,” Lander argued at the forum.

Like Goldman, some have raised concerns about the criticism of AIPAC, which has a mixed record in races it gets involved in. In an interview with POLITICO, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, one of a handful of Jewish governors, said he thinks the arguments against AIPAC spending have “been used cynically by some to try and silence certain voices, to try and say that certain people participating in politics shouldn’t count or should be viewed in a toxic way.”

Goldman, who is endorsed by AIPAC, has said he returned the money from the organization. And four weeks out from the primary, there’s no indication that AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC is going to spend in it.

Still, Israel remains a prominent issue in the race — no matter how much Goldman attempts to neutralize it. Last month, the incumbent rolled out an ad denouncing President Donald Trump and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the war in Iran.

Public polling in the district, which covers parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn, has been scarce. But a recent Emerson College survey found Lander leading Goldman by more than 30 points. Lander is endorsed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani — whom Goldman did not support during the mayoral election — the Working Families Party and a slew of progressive officials and organizations. Goldman has the backing of Gov. Kathy Hochul and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, along with more than a dozen unions. Goldman also recently received the support of Hasidic leaders from Brooklyn’s Borough Park enclave.

As for Goldman and Lander’s similarities on Israel, the challenger pushed back, pointing to Goldman having “voted for every single U.S. military aid package to Israel.” In a back-and forth during the forum about the boycott, divest and sanctions movement — which both Goldman and Lander said they do not support — Goldman said he agrees with Lander that “Israelis aren’t going to be safe until Palestinians are free,” to which the challenger retorted: “You don’t do anything to make it happen.”

“I believe in the vision of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, but it’s not acting consistently with Jewish or democratic values right now, and it can’t while it keeps occupying the West Bank and Gaza, and imposing apartheid on Palestinians,” Lander said. “The differences here are strong. If people want someone who is really going to fight to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, to make it so that Jewish New Yorkers and Muslim New Yorkers can work together instead of be divided from each other, and try to address the failures of U.S. foreign policy, the choice is clear.”

Much of the forum focused on Israel. When asked if he would vote for the “Block the Bombs Act,” which would prohibit the sale or transfer of military equipment to Israel until the country guarantees compliance with international law, Goldman said it is “not going to come to a vote, because it was written last summer as an effort to support a ceasefire, which was reached in October, and our laws enforce international human rights law already.” When pressed again, he said the legislation has “been overtaken by events, and I think there are other issues with ‘Block the Bombs’” but also that we need to “aggressively enforce international law against Bibi Netanyahu.”

Lander has called Israel’s actions in Gaza a “genocide.” Goldman said today it’s “really important that we move away from labels and terminology, especially for legal terms, and focus on how we can arrive at a two-state peaceful solution.”

The incumbent also expressed regret for voting to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) in 2023 over her criticism of Israel, saying “there are better ways of dealing with that that I wish I had pursued” and “it was a very emotional time and sometimes emotion gets the best of you.”

“This is an incredibly, incredibly emotional issue right now for very, very many people, and what I’m worried about is that it is dividing all of us; it is dividing Muslims and Jews, it is dividing Jews,” Goldman said. “This is part of the reason why I disagree a little bit about what the critical issues are in this race. The critical issues are the ones facing the voters, and those are not necessarily what’s going on 6,000 miles away, it’s what’s going on at their kitchen tables.” — Madison Fernandez

From the Capitol

New York’s status as a blue state that includes several swing seats has made it a fulcrum for the national fight over redistricting.

REDISTRICTING REDUX: New York Democrats are expected to introduce bills by Friday to pave the way for new congressional lines in 2028, according to four people familiar with the talks.

Officials are weighing two constitutional amendments — one that would allow some minor tweaks, and another that would permit an aggressive Democratic gerrymander, according to the people, who were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door conversations.

New York’s cumbersome process to change the state constitution restricts Democrats from redrawing House boundaries in time for the 2026 midterm elections. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, has made his home state’s House lines part of a broader, longer-term strategy to pick up seats in the closely divided chamber.

“This is a potentially existential matter for our democracy in the ‘28 elections,” said Assemblymember Micah Lasher, a Democratic House candidate who previously proposed an amendment to allow for mid-decade redistricting. “There’s a broad understanding that in the redistricting arms race New York can’t be on the sidelines.”

HOCHUL BACKS ALT ROCK BAND: The governor’s press shop sent out a release today that heaped effusive and exuberant praise on a ‘90s rock band.

The missive — uncharacteristic of the staid memos typically dispatched by the gov’s press shop — was sent to promote a state-sponsored watch party on Long Island for the U.S. vs. Paraguay World Cup match on June 12, which will feature a pregame concert from Third Eye Blind, or 3EB.

“Participation in the older, untouchable realm of nervous star-making could color a band’s identity,” the governor’s office said. “In the case of 3EB, it often blurred the perception of their brilliant musical creations.”

It’s unclear if the band behind hits like “Semi-Charmed Life” and “Jumper,” which formed in San Francisco, feel the same way about the governor. In 2016, 3EB made headlines when their lead singer said he “repudiates” the Republican party and called Donald Trump’s then-presidential campaign deplorable. But there’s no record of him expressing similar passion — either in support or opposition — for New York’s 57th governor.

“3EB won wide success during a tumultuous group of years when the major-label recording industry was finally losing its grip on an enterprise that for decades it had dominated with steely efficiency,” Hochul’s office also said. “3EB now write, tour, record, and communicate in a fluid new world where their music continues to evolve naturally. Their exchange with their audience is unfiltered and being from the hub of tech, they are using it to develop a closer connection with their audience.”

Perhaps 3EB can release an updated version of its 2000 single “10 Days Late” to inspire lawmakers as they scramble to wrap up the nearly two-month late state budget. — Jason Beeferman

SHARPE SUBMITS: Libertarian Larry Sharpe has filed to run for the “Coalition Party” in this year’s gubernatorial campaign, making him the only candidate seeking to run without major party support.

The odds are long he’ll actually make the ballot — a reality he’s more than willing to concede.

“It doesn’t matter, we’re never going to make it. We’re going to be in lawsuits,” Sharpe said when asked how many signatures he submitted.

One individual familiar with the filing said he believes Sharpe submitted 1,600 of the required 45,000 signatures.

Third parties have become all but extinct in major races in New York since former Gov. Andrew Cuomo hiked the signature threshold from 15,000 in 2019. “Bobby Kennedy Jr. spent a million dollars,” Sharpe said of the now-health secretary’s 2024 presidential campaign. “He’s a fucking Kennedy and he couldn’t get on.”

The only other candidate to file for an additional ballot line in November was Bruce Blakeman, who submitted to add the “Vote Affordable” line to the Republican and Conservative ones he’s already running under. His campaign told the New York Post he submitted 66,345 signatures — not quite the number most experts say is needed to make a candidate immune from challenges. — Bill Mahoney

FROM CITY HALL

City Council member Shahana Hanif criticized two woman for attending a protest outside Gracie Mansion.

RAISING HELL: City Council member Shahana Hanif is under fire from critics for declaring on social media last night that two fellow Muslim women critical of Mayor Zohran Mamdani should be “condemned to Jahannam,” the Islamic concept of hell.

But Hanif, the first Muslim woman elected to the Council, says the criticism against her is overblown — and potentially bigoted.

“Let’s be serious: ‘Go to hell’ is a pretty common expression of frustration or disappointment … but the moment Arabic enters the conversation, suddenly people will act like I said something far more sinister,” Hanif told Playbook today.

Hanif delivered the broadside in an X post last night criticizing the two women, Anila Ali and Zeba Zebunnesa, for participating in a protest held outside Gracie Mansion to call on Gov. Kathy Hochul to remove Mamdani from office over the claim that he’s not doing enough to combat antisemitism.

“May Allah condemn you to Jahannam,” Hanif wrote in the post, which was responding to a message from Ali saying she and Zebunnesa were on their way to the Gracie demonstration.

Ali and Zebunnesa are organizers with a group called American Muslim & Multifaith Women’s Empowerment Council.

In the Quran, Jahannam is portrayed as a place of divine justice where sinners are sent to face punishment in the afterlife. Broken into seven descending levels reserved for different groups of sinners, Jahannam is considered the Islamic equivalent of hell, with punishments becoming more extreme the deeper one goes.

Elchanan Poupko, a rabbi and social media commentator, said Hanif crossed “a red line” with her tweet.

“Why is @ShahanaFromBK, an elected official, using religion for targeted harassment against a Muslim woman @anilaali, for exercising her constitutional rights protesting @ZohranKMamdani????” Poupko wrote on X. “This is unacceptable.”

A few hundred people participated in the protest outside Gracie Mansion last night, though no elected officials or mainstream Jewish groups were billed as being in attendance.

The event featured people brandishing Israeli flags and demanding that Mamdani, a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights, do more to combat antisemitism in New York. The event also featured more extreme, bigoted elements, including people shouting that Mamdani, an American citizen born in Uganda, should be deported.

Hanif pointed to the fact that rhetoric like that played out at the protest in justifying her Jahannam jab.

“I can and will criticize MAGA influencers joining a MAGA hate rally full of conspiratorial rhetoric and f-bombs,” Hanif said. — Chris Sommerfeldt

IN OTHER NEWS

— TARGETING GAP: A database of more than 1,200 lawsuits shows more than 93 percent of immigration enforcement arrests in New York and New Jersey targeted Latinos, despite the fact that they make up only 66 percent of immigrants without legal status. (THE CITY)

— NO PLAYING AROUND: New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a joint investigation into FIFA’s ticket selling practices. (POLITICO)

— ‘I WAS HURT’: New York’s Legislature is considering bills to amend policies for imprisoned pregnant women after one gave birth while handcuffed in a Brooklyn courtroom. (Gothamist)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

Politics

Gavin Newsom’s first 2028 test: This fall, in Nevada

Published

18 hours ago

September 7, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

LAS VEGAS — If California Gov. Gavin Newsom runs for president in 2028, next-door Nevada will be a crucial test. This fall’s governor’s race is offering a preview.

As GOP Gov. Joe Lombardo runs for reelection, he’s trying to pin high Nevada fuel prices — a majority of which is imported from California — on “Gavin Newsom’s energy policies.” He lambasts California as too expensive and too regulated. And he’s hammering his Democratic opponent, Attorney General Aaron Ford, for accepting Newsom’s endorsement, betting that it will turn off Nevada swing voters.

“The contrast is simple: I’m fighting Gavin Newsom’s agenda and Aaron Ford is trying to import it into Nevada,” Lombardo said in a statement to Blue Light News.

This could be a test run for 2028, when Newsom may call upon Nevadans — one-fifth of whom were born in California — to deliver him a primary victory in the early-voting state, and possibly a presidential victory.

“They understand California costs more,” Donna West, chair of the Nevada Democratic Party’s senior caucus, said of Nevada’s California expats. “They also understand that California is the fourth-largest economy in the entire world, and that Gavin Newsom ran that as effectively as he possibly can.”

Newsom’s office declined to comment. A person close to the governor, granted anonymity to discuss the sentiment in his orbit, said they are “thrilled” Republicans are spending money to “plaster Newsom’s name across a key early state.”

“Republicans seem awfully concerned about an endorsement from someone who leads the 2028 Democratic field in Nevada by nearly 2-to-1,” the person said, pointing to a November 2025 Emerson poll of a hypothetical 2028 Democratic primary field.

Ford, for his part, shrugs off the attacks.

“Lombardo tries to cast blame elsewhere, but everyone knows that when the war started in February, that we saw our gas prices increase almost immediately,” Ford told Blue Light News after a recent town hall in Las Vegas. “People believe their own eyes, and they remember their experiences.”

The demonization of California is nothing new in Nevada politics: For years, Republicans have blasted their western neighbor as too expensive and too woke.

But the stakes are higher, and the connection more palpable, this year, as Newsom explores a presidential bid. He would likely need to perform very well in Nevada, now second on the Democratic calendar, to build early momentum toward the party nomination. And come November 2028, he’d need to fare well in Nevada again, this time among the state’s general electorate, a plurality of which are independents.

Newsom has stumped for Democrats across the country this cycle, and he blitzed through the South this week, including a swing through South Carolina, whose Democrats will vote first, right before Nevada, in 2028.

But Republicans are looking to weaponize Newsom’s Silver State swing in July, where Ford introduced him at a new Las Vegas field office as “the governor of the great state of California.”

“Our next president!” an audience member shouted, eliciting cheers.

The Lombardo-aligned Better Nevada PAC shared polling with Blue Light News in July showing Newsom’s favorability 20 points underwater in Nevada and losing a hypothetical 2028 head-to-head with Vice President JD Vance. Shortly thereafter, the PAC began an ad blitz tying Ford to the California governor.

Billboards touting Newsom’s endorsement of Ford, paid for by the PAC, now line highways across Nevada, and digital and streaming ads have run consistently since the visit. “Newsom and Ford: Shared vision. Shared values,” one ad says.

A person familiar with the PAC’s internal polling, granted anonymity to discuss private data, said it shows Newsom’s endorsement is now the second-most-known datapoint about the attorney general.

“Gavin Newsom is the singular most unpopular elected official in Nevada,” said Jeremy Hughes, a longtime Nevada GOP strategist running the Lombardo-aligned PAC. “Aaron Ford brought him into the state. … There’s no better way to help him out than to put up these signs and run ads, letting people know that he’s excited about being endorsed by Gavin Newsom.”

Republicans in the state have long blamed Californian expats for housing shortages and rising prices and connect their opponents to California liberals. A surge of ex-Californians leaving the state during the Covid-19 pandemic, some fleeing high taxes and cost of living, accelerated the trend.

Sam Brown, the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in 2022, blasted the “energy policies of Gavin Newsom”; in 2018, GOP governor nominee Adam Laxalt lamented the “Californization” of Nevada, even as Californians bankrolled his campaign. During Lombardo’s first run for governor in 2022, he slammed incumbent Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak for taking his cues from Newsom: “Don’t let Steve Sisolak turn Nevada into California,” one post said. Republicans tied their opponents to Nancy Pelosi for decades.

Lombardo’s argument this time around is more focused. He notes that the vast majority of Nevada’s gasoline comes from California, and argues that California’s efforts to cut carbon emissions have caused fuel prices to soar. A gallon of gas in Nevada costs nearly $5, according to AAA, one of the highest prices in the nation.

“The policies coming from Gavin Newsom and California Democrats … don’t stop at their state line,” Lombardo said in a statement. “Nevada and other states import a significant portion of our fuel from California, so when Governor Newsom shuts down refineries and imposes regulations that reduce supply and increase costs, Nevada families feel the consequences at the pump.”

It’s a strategy that allows Lombardo — running in a difficult national environment for incumbent Republicans — to acknowledge voters’ economic pain without blaming President Donald Trump or his own party. Indeed, Lombardo shared an April column in the Nevada Independent that placed blame at the feet of both Newsom and Trump. (Lombardo, in his post, blamed only Newsom.)

Democrats don’t think voters will buy it. ‘“As far as gas prices, it’s so obviously increased since the war,” Rep. Dina Titus said. “People in Nevada aren’t stupid.”

Ford has his own millstone to saddle Lombardo with: the president. At a recent town hall in Las Vegas, he repeatedly blasted the “Lombardo-Trump economy” that is “making everything too expensive.”

“Voters absolutely tie the handling of the economy to Trump,” said Mike Noble, an independent Phoenix-based pollster who works in Nevada regularly. “Instead of blaming Trump, why not tie it to the boogeyman next door and blame California?”

Politics

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

Published

2 days ago

September 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

lead image

Politics

Trump wants the Postal Service to radically overhaul mail voting. But ballots are already going out.

Published

4 days ago

September 4, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s controversial demands for the Postal Service to overhaul and monitor millions of mail ballots hit another snag on Friday, when North Carolina became the first state in the nation to start sending out ballots for the November election.

In March, Trump signed the initial executive order, which aimed to crack down on mail-in voting — which he regularly alleges without evidence is a vector for widespread voter fraud — and assert an unprecedented amount of federal control over the upcoming elections.

Under this order and the subsequent rule drafted by the U.S. Postal Service, the USPS would refuse to deliver ballots to states that failed to provide lists of eligible mail voters or did not adhere to an approved envelope design style.

Since then, the order has faced legal challenges, and it remains paused by a federal judge’s orders. But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the new rule to proceed — something current and former election officials from both parties say would be both a legal nightmare that oversteps the federal government’s traditional role in elections and a logistical one that is happening far too close to the November election to implement even if they agreed with it.

“Why the hell are you rocking the boat this late in the game?” said Stephen Richer, a former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has clashed with Trump allies for defending the security of the 2020 election.

Still, election officials are trying to project a sense of normalcy for voters, particularly in North Carolina, which serves as a test of whether established local election systems can operate normally amid intensifying federal scrutiny.

“I want to emphasize this point because there has been a lot of outside noise: Our county workers are ready,” Sam Hayes, a longtime Republican lawyer in the state and now executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in a Thursday afternoon press conference.

He added, “All we can do is what we’re doing. … It is business as usual as far as I’m concerned.”

Despite the legal challenges, the Trump administration has continued to press the courts to let it proceed. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift an order from a Massachusetts judge which temporarily prevents the USPS from enforcing their rule. It is the second time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in, after winning an earlier victory in which the high court dismissed an earlier hold on the rule as premature.

“The uncertainty is coming from a single activist judge who continues to try and obstruct President Trump from implementing commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans vote in American elections,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. “These safeguards for mail ballots were proposed months ago giving election officials ample time to prepare for the 2026 election.”

The USPS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Election officials said that if the rule goes into effect this close to November, it would cause chaos and place added strain on the USPS and election officials. And an anonymous federal whistleblower said in a report circulated earlier this week by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that the USPS was moving forward in a “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process” to try to implement the new system ahead of the midterms.

In the coming weeks, states across the country will follow North Carolina’s lead. Nine other states will begin mailing ballots in the next two weeks, according to a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures — with the biggest day for mailing coming 45 days before the election in mid-September.

“It would be so outrageous to try to let this go into effect. It’s hard to even imagine,” said Ben Hovland, a senior fellow for democracy at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress and former Democratic commissioner with the Election Assistance Commission who was fired by Trump in July.

He added, “It would be a break-glass moment for our democracy.”

The rule would require meticulous changes to ballot handling and tracking practices that Hovland said are impossible to implement before Election Day in about two months, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters.

“Ballots are printed. Envelopes are printed. You can go on and on with all the practical reasons that show that implementing something like this at this time is not feasible,” he said.

Richer said he doubted the new rules would bring about more security. Even if the USPS received lists from the states, according to the postal service’s final rule, it would not do any additional vetting of the list, Richer said.

“It’s just that the mail ballots have to be on that list, and I don’t see what added value for election integrity that does,” he said.

He added, “It creates a lot of administrative burden, and I think it creates a lot more opportunity for error.”

While a decision looms in the courts, election officials and experts cast doubt on the likelihood of the rules going into effect before November. A more pressing issue, they said, is the confusion and uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots, which could subvert and change the behaviors of voters.

“It makes things seem messy or difficult, and it can dissuade people from participating or coming out to vote,” Hovland said. “It certainly also helps establish a pretext to make bad faith claims about election results.”

Hovland said that while none of these claims of voter fraud are backed up with facts, they could cause Americans to lose faith in the voting process.

Still, some current officials contended they were well-prepared for whatever happens — and that they’d be able to communicate effectively with voters who have become increasingly buffeted by dramatic rhetoric about the once-unmentioned nuts and bolts of actually running an election.

“There’s always a lot of noise around elections, that’s not going to change, and it can be hard to differentiate that from what’s actually going on on the ground,” said Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

As Election Day approaches, Tyson and election officials said they urge voters to check their registration status and make a plan to vote.

He added, “I think we’ve got a really well-trained, solid staff who are ready, and who have gone through all of the checks and balances and points of contact that we need to do to get to where we are.”