The Battle for New York's 12th Congressional District

Why It Matters

Rep. Jerry Nadler announced on September 1, 2025 that he would not seek an 18th term in 2026, citing the need for generational change in the Democratic Party. Nadler, who had served in Congress since 1992, was also pushed out of the party's top seat on the Judiciary Committee by his Democratic colleagues, a position he had held since 2017.

The New York 12th Congressional District, entirely within Manhattan and covering the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, Midtown, Hell's Kitchen, Chelsea, Murray Hill, and Gramercy, is one of the most reliably Democratic districts in the country. When Nadler won reelection in 2024, he took 81 percent of the vote. Now, with an open seat, this Democratic primary has become a high-stakes competition featuring multiple well-funded, high-profile candidates. Seven candidates remain in the race after two suspended their campaigns.

Money Flooding the Race

The battle for Nadler's successor has generated unprecedented fundraising. The race has seen a combined $11.1 million raised across all candidates, with money flowing from unexpected sources and distant states.

Micah Lasher, a West Side State Assemblyman who has been endorsed by Nadler, has raised approximately $2.1 million. He spent about $480,000 and has approximately $1.6 million cash on hand. Nearly all of his funding comes from individual contributions, with only $9,000 from PACs and committees. Critically, 68 percent of Lasher's donations came from Manhattan, making him the candidate with the highest share of local donors.

Alex Bores, an East Side State Assemblyman, leads in raw fundraising with approximately $2.9 million raised. He has spent about $490,000 and maintains approximately $2.4 million cash on hand. Like Lasher, Bores raised almost entirely from individual contributions, with only $8,000 from PACs. But his funding sources tell a starkly different story. Only 12 percent of Bores' donations came from within the district itself, and just 16 percent from Manhattan overall. California was his top donor state with $970,000, followed by New York state outside the district with $540,000. Massachusetts contributed $130,000, Washington DC $71,000, and Washington State $67,000.

Bores has been elevated by AI industry attention, and that attention comes with a price. A super PAC called "Leading the Future" funded by executives from OpenAI, Palantir, and Andreessen Horowitz has spent more than $7.6 million in attack advertising against Bores, making him face a devastating outside spending assault despite his fundraising lead.

Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of President John F. Kennedy and a political commentator, raised approximately $3.9 million including a $1 million personal loan he made to his campaign in early June. Through December 31, 2025, he had raised approximately $1.13 million. Schlossberg has branded himself "No PAC Jack" for refusing PAC money. His donor list reads like a who's who of entertainment and finance: Lorne Michaels, Bette Midler, John Goodman, and Paul Simon each donated approximately $3,300. Other listed donors include Tory Burch, Richard Plepler, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Lourd, Chrissy Teigen, Jay Carney, Jon Corzine, and Peggy Siegal. Schlossberg is now the top self-funder in the race.

George Conway, an attorney and former Republican turned anti-Trump activist, entered the race late. His campaign committee was registered on December 22, 2025, and he filed a Form 3 FEC filing as recently as June 11.

Nina Schwalbe participated in the C-SPAN primary debate. Her FEC coverage runs from October 10, 2025 to March 31, 2026. She has explicitly raised concerns about whether the race is accessible to candidates without millions of dollars and preexisting fame.

The Polling Picture

According to the most recent Emerson College polling, Lasher is leading narrowly, followed by Bores, then Schlossberg, then Conway. This represents a shift from months earlier when Schlossberg held a narrow lead before the latest poll showed movement toward the West Side assemblyman.

What's at Stake

Nadler, the 10th-longest-serving member of the House and dean of the New York delegation, has been a leading voice in Congress on gun control, gay rights, abortion rights, limited government surveillance powers, and civil liberties. He was one of the managers appointed by the House of Representatives in 2020 to conduct impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump.

However, Democratic leadership has not relied on Nadler as a top strategist on polarizing issues in the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction in recent years. The second Trump administration has signaled that immigration and federal law enforcement power are top areas of focus, areas where the Judiciary Committee plays a central role.

Nadler's replacement will inherit a seat of significant influence, though the dynamics of the committee have shifted. The race reflects broader questions about what Democratic representation looks like in a deeply blue Manhattan district: whether it prioritizes local roots and neighborhood-level engagement, national fundraising networks, celebrity status, or anti-Trump activism.

The Fundraising Divide

The fundraising patterns reveal fundamental differences in how candidates are building their campaigns. Lasher's strategy centers on Manhattan donors and local support. Bores is drawing heavily from the tech and venture capital worlds, particularly California, but faces the unprecedented headwind of a $7.6 million super PAC attack campaign. Schlossberg is leveraging his Kennedy name and entertainment industry connections while self-funding at levels other candidates cannot match.

The contrast between Lasher and Bores is particularly stark. Bores raised more total money but from a national, tech-focused donor base. Lasher raised less but from a concentrated local donor base. Schlossberg raised the most, but has relied on his personal wealth and celebrity connections rather than building a traditional fundraising operation.

For voters in a district that has reliably supported Democratic incumbents, the choice between these candidates represents a choice between different models of representation and different networks of support.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article