Editorial note: During Friday’s editorial meeting (in front of the placard that our third intern wood-burned for us in shop class, “If you don’t come in Saturday, don’t bother coming in Sunday!”) the topic of endorsements came up again. Unlike The Washington Post and The New York Times, which both announced policy-changes in 2024—the latter laid off endorsements for local and state candidates, and the former famously stopped doing so in the presidential race, and was rewarded with a quarter-million dropped subscriptions1—we have never changed our endorsement policy. Which is to not have one.
As regular readers are aware, we aren’t allergic to the idea of getting behind the occasional candidate or cause. But we do recognize that attaching The 914’s brand to an entity comes with perils and so we try to be disciplined about it, always approaching at a macro level and considering whether the reward justifies the risk of, say, backing a restaurant that a few months down the line might get involved in a salmonella outbreak. Or of backing a village board candidate that spends six-figures of the townspeople’s taxes on an e-bike sharing program that ends up being chronically under-used except, ironically, by a highly litigious visitor from the Upper East Side who sues the village for seven figures after crashing into a parking bollard.
Editorial dispassion is one of the many fine lines that etch today’s journalism and it’s a topic of frequent discussion from the interns on up to the editors.
Some feel the very notion of editorial fairness is a propagandic con—a way to lull readers into believing we’re just about the facts when, of course, none of us exists without bias.
And then there are others who feel that, however unrealistic it is to expect dispassion from human beings, it is still a worthy aspiration—something we should strive to achieve.
Of course not even our most inexperienced intern considers us to even close to Westchester Magazine which has engineered an alternate (and perhaps primary) revenue stream with their Best-in-Westchester2 “awards,” pushing ad packages3 at the nominees and charging the hundreds of yearly “winners” for the official plaques4 and other merch they presumably show to each other at the annual awards dinner5 at the Glenn Island Harbour Club down in the Neutral Ground on Long Island Sound, where that Adams-administration NYPD chief held a best-dressed-female-employee contest in 2023 and got his ass sued.6
As an ex-journalist once said during a discussion of that periodical, “If you want some quo from the pros, you better give ‘em a few quid.”
We draw the line at such open acts of advertorial behavior. And we like to believe that awards, endorsements, and other systems that make reputation a fungible commodity—exchangeable for influence or cash—is a sport for people who don’t *get* The 914.
But, at the same time, we remain aware that sometimes voicing an opinion—even among people as well-informed and discerning as our subscribers—
can make a difference in the wider world, especially when the wider world appears to be in a state of grave precarity.
What follows is a transcript of the discussion between our editor in chief and three members of the reporting staff.
We’ve interspersed some key charts and links, and have edited the scene for brevity.7
The candidate debate that the team is discussing took place some weeks ago on the southern edge of our own 17th New York congressional district, on the campus of Manhattanville College in the hamlet of Purchase.
Although six candidates were in the race, the shadowy Westchester County Democratic Committee, which sponsored the debate, selected just the four candidates that they deemed—based on reports of moneys raised (including those funneled by party PACs), and two polls from earlier in the year—to be the front-runners. In the hours before the debate, however, one of these candidates, tech entrepreneur and former Briarcliff Mayor Peter Chatzky, dropped out of the race after some “bawdy” Facebook posts surfaced, including one that involved carnal relations with Melania Trump.8 Which is why just three candidates took the stage. They are
Cait Conley, age 39. Most recent occupation: consultant for Primer.AI9, a defense contractor in San Francisco, California. First line from the bio on her campaign website: “A proud fourth-generation Hudson Valley native from working-class roots who understands the values of hard work and public service.”
Beth Davidson, age 52. Most recent occupation: Rockland county legislator and freelance writer and consultant.10 First line of self-description from her campaign website: “A community leader and bipartisan problem-solver who knows firsthand that business-as-usual politics in Washington and Albany have left us with higher taxes, higher costs, and anxiety about the Hudson Valley’s future.”
Effie Phillips-Staley, age 54. Most recent occupation: executive director of the Foundation for the Public Schools of the Tarrytowns and trustee for the Village of Tarrytown. First line of self-description from her campaign website: “A Tarrytown Trustee and nonprofit executive who has dedicated her life to social justice and public service.”
The winner of the June 23 Democratic Party primary will run against Republican incumbent Mike “Moonwalk” Lawler in November.
You may also note, at the request of those involved, we have pseudonymized the speakers. (Though we suspect some area locals may correctly surmise who is who.)
From a recent 914 editorial meeting:
…
<time stamp 43:05>
Ed: So, no outreach to us from any of the candidates’ committees?
Tip: None.
Ed: But you guys still want to ask the chief to consider an endorsement?
Paige: We do.
Ed: You know we’ve never endorsed a Congressional candidate?
Chase: Hear us out, okay?
Ed: Which one are you suggesting? None of them looks quite, well, exciting. Though I suppose a piebald racoon could beat Mike Lawler at this point. I mean that weird Michael Jackson fan11 is an embarrassment and, here in America, we don’t abide—
Tip: Yeah, there’s that. And the fact that the GOP is focusing on this race. Lawler’s raised $6.7 million through the end of March. And reports say he’s above $7.5 million now which is more than all the Dems together. The Dem frontrunner, Conley, is only up to $2.6 million. And Davidson, the one from across the river, is at $1.9 million through March. And Effie’s raised pish.
Ed: Yes, but the Dem spigot won’t turn on until the primary’s past, right? I mean Lawler’s in a clear lane—that’s why they’re filling his tank even now. It’s a case of apples and hydroponic oranges.
Chase: Lawler did win handily last time.
Ed: Well that was a Dem party special, wasn’t it? They ran a carpetbagging insider from the City! And that was the height of the DNC’s self-immolation phase.
Tip: That phase is done?
Ed: Look, this time we know the short-fingered vulgarian has taken it too far. Never mind the populist surge, the real bosses want him out. Dimon. Zuck. Fink. Cook. Thiel. Musk. Jeffy the Thumb. The blue wave is coming.
Chase: And you don’t think these real bosses won’t manage to keep the blue confined to business-friendly channels that will prevent any meaningful change?
Ed: Don’t be so dramatic. This has happened before. It’s a new gilded age. And another New Deal is likely to follow. All that needs to happen now is an intervening world war. So, how about we go over your reporting, and then we’ll talk about the endorsement situation.
Chase: Fair enough. We’ve analyzed the debate transcript and have identified some striking differences.
Ed: Even though they’re all three middle-aged white women living in Westchester?
Chase: Effie is half-Honduran.
Tip: Also, though she’s living here now, Conley arguably hasn’t been here very long.12
Ed: Fine. Take me through these highly diverse middle-aged female candidates. What didn’t I know already? What are the top quotes by each? What were the most dramatic moments at the event? Didn’t I hear that Davidson went after Conley for being a DC insider?
Paige: Yes, here you go—Davidson said
“We need a different kind of Democrat this year to go up against Mike Lawler. And it isn’t someone who has spent the last 10 years in Washington. That is how we got Mike Lawler in the first place.”
and
“[Lawler] would like nothing more than to run against a Biden administration insider who just moved to this district.”
Ed: I’ve heard louder slaps. Did Conley punch back?
Chase: No. She ignored her. Talked up her own connections. Her mother working at the post office in Peekskill. The father from Hopewell Junction. The grandfather from the Montrose brickyards.
Ed: So she’s got the working-class roots. But the question is whether she’s a class advocate, or apostate. And what about Effie and the Hasan Piker thing? Did the other two swing at her over that?
Tip: No, but Effie raised it herself. One has the sense Davidson and Conley just don’t perceive her to be worth their attention. Look at the rankings here—
Ed: What’s this? What’s Kalshi?
Paige: It’s the first one to be regulated by the CFTC.
Ed: The first one what? And what’s the CFTC?
Paige: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It’s been around since 1974. Although it’s remit has seemed to alter in recent years to include betting platforms like, well, Kalshi.
Ed: It’s an online betting site!?
Paige: Yes.
Ed: For politics!?
Paige: And other things. Like the weather.
Ed: Holy cow. Is this that Polymarket thing I’ve been hearing about?
Paige: That’s a different platform, but yes. Polymarket’s been a little more bullish on Conley, but recently has Davidson surging.
Ed: What the . . . does this track with the polling? Or could pro-Davidson people be gaming the odds here by betting on her? I mean it’s less than a $100k being placed so far—that’s less than some individual ad buys or consultant fees. And clearly journalists are looking at these results . . . Could this be considered effective advertising or P.R.? I mean, even though it’s just speaking to what a few degenerate gamblers think, does a good result here make a candidate seem more electable?
Tip: Surely local Dems would not stoop to such tactics.
Paige: At any rate, Conley and Davidson seem to be splitting the mainstream vote. Lake Research ran a poll in early February13 that showed Conley ahead by just one point, then Impact ran one in mid-March14 that showed Davidson leading. They’re both tiny surveys—400 respondents each I believe. And who knows on the sampling methodology. But for the few voters who are paying any attention to the race—and of course that filters to high-propensity party regulars—they’re neck-and-neck for the lead.
Ed: What about cash?
Chase: It appears Conley’s still winning on money. Though Dem headquarters apparently hasn’t turned off the flow to Davidson.
Paige: Yeah, the party clearly doesn’t care for Effie—she’s too progressive. Might impede the fundraising mechanisms. So they’re trying to figure out who’s got the goods between these two—the West Point, Biden-admin lesbian from up north, or the blue-eyed PMC Jewish-convert mom who’s lived for twenty-plus years over in Rockland and refers to Israel as her homeland.15
Ed: Lends a whole new semantic tinge to the Department of Homeland Security, doesn’t it? And what about Conley—does she look more like working class advocate or apostate? Sometimes the ones born outside the gates enjoy insider life the most.
Tip: A case could be made she’s moved to the dark side of the force. After West Point and serving in the army, she got her Harvard MBA and worked cyber-security for the Biden administration. And her last paycheck was from a San Francisco A.I. startup that contracts with the War Department.
Ed: Yeah, that’ll bleach your collar pretty quick.
Chase: And it appears both she and Davidson are on the Israel lobby dole, or at least have signaled to donors that they’re willing to be. Though it should be noted they’ve taken less than 6-figures so far.
Ed: Our neighbor George wouldn’t get out of bed for that.
Tip: Well, George was taking on an incumbent. And one who was a tad more critical of the Israel lobby agenda16 than Lawler is.
Ed: So what did the candidates have to say about the country that runs our country?
Paige: Well, Conley said,
“As America, we have a responsibility to support the safety and security of Israel and the Jewish people. And I think we also have a responsibility to push for a two-state solution so that all peoples can have safety and security. And I do believe—just as I am a proud American and pro-American, I can also criticize Trump and this government and what it does—I can be pro-Israel and say we need to have really hard conversations on how conflict is conducted because this is about the safety and security of generations to come. I am also very concerned about what is happening inside of our own borders where we are seeing anti-semitism rise in our own communities. We are seeing hate take hold and I blame Donald Trump for a lot of this as he has normalized hate as he has spread hate as he has capitalized on it inflamed it. There is nothing more un-American than hate.
Ed: Ah, that’s a great last line. It’s a remarkable thing about our fellow Americans that they never hate anything or anybody. This really came through to me watching that last Knicks-Sixers game. A lot of people were shouting about not caring for certain calls by the refs, but nobody was hateful about it.
Paige: And Beth Davidson had this to say—
As a Jewish woman who has friends and family in Israel, this is very personal to me. And the 17th congressional district is 20% Jewish. For those who don’t know, fun fact, it’s the eighth largest Jewish community in the world. So, this is an issue that touches every corner of this district very personally. My daughter was actually in Israel in August of 2023 for the most interfaith, multi-racial amazing experience she could have had. also marching in the protests against the Supreme Court issue with Benjamin Netanyahu. And I would also say that as much as I love America and detest the Trump administration, I do love Israel and yet disagree with so much of what the administration has done. And I’d also say that Donald Trump has been far too weak to stand up to Bibi Netanyahu in ways that we should have been all of this time. Bringing home the hostages much earlier, bringing the conflict to a close much quicker. Too many people died both in Israel and in Palestine. And I do also hope for a two-state solution. But we’re not going to get there unless we engage other countries in the region. And while we’re also fighting another unnecessary war right next door, we need to bring all of these conflicts to a close and engage other countries in the region to what I personally want to see, which is a path to self-determination for the Palestinian people and a safe and secure Israel.
Ed: Ah, a tad more specific: Bibi getting the blame, plus she’s okay speaking of two states.
And I love her citing that demographic statistic for the district! Did you know we’re the eighth largest Jewish community in the world? I had no idea on that. Though I wonder how she’s defining community. That could be a little loosey-goosey. I mean is this District 17 versus Manhattan versus the Tel Aviv metro area versus Brooklyn versus . . .
Chaise: We don’t know.
Ed: Well have the intern look that up before you print it.
It’s also interesting that both she and Conley are doing the I-love-America-and-Israel-both thing. That’s smart rhetoric. It signals pro-Israel while not entirely ceding one’s abiding loyalty to America. I do the same when I speak of Nicole Kidman in public. I always express my great—and pre-eminent—affection for my wife first.
Chase: [unintelligible]
Paige: And here’s Effie Phillips-Staley on Israel:
Throughout my life, I think the one value that has guided everything I do is putting people first so that everybody has the opportunity to thrive. And I believe that can only happen when universal human rights are actually universal, that they apply to everyone. The Middle East, Israel, and Palestine is a deeply unsafe place. Palestinians and Israelis are both in danger. I was able to go visit um Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank in this tiny window of time where it was relatively safe to do it. And I did it because I needed to learn by seeing it, by being there, what the conditions were and why. And when I came back, even before I was back, it was clear to me that Israel was creating terrible apartheid conditions for Palestinians that were unthinkable. Unthinkable in the name of safety, but I do not see how this can create safety. We see a situation where the death penalty is now being applied only to Palestinians, where there are two unequal legal systems. It is appalling. And when people spoke to me, Israelis, former IDF members, Palestinians, they said the only thing that will stop this, that will stop what they called a genocide is withholding aid to Israel. That was the only thing and only we had the power to do that. And that’s not to make people unsafe, that is to change the direction of her government that they described as becoming fascist. That is where that is what I saw and I could not live with myself if I did not say these things to this group. We in the United States have the power to create good in the world. We have immense political power, immense economic power, immense diplomatic power and we have the ability just as we did with South Africa. And I know this will upset some people to say no, a system that is as unequal as this and as as unjust as this should not be funded with US tax dollars. And we have a law about that, too. It is the Leahy Law. I believe that everyone in Israel should be safe and happy and everyone in Palestine as well.
Ed: Well that’s an interesting sandwich—sizzling apartheid and genocide cutlets between lightly toasted slices of virtuous three-grain bread. (Those grains being thriving, safety and happiness.) And with a side of budgetary threat. But good on her for giving up any chance at AIPAC funding. And for running on like that. Did she similarly hog the mic throughout?
Tip: No. Conley actually ran over the most frequently. She spoke for an estimated 42 minutes. The other two held court for less than 37 minutes.
Ed: Well that takes skill.
Chase: And she didn’t say “uh” even once.
Ed: That tracks. At least in my day, the Army was pretty good at beating the “uh” out a person. Fascinating. Say—did the new intern do these charts for you? They’re nice.
Tip: Yes, his name’s Claude.
Ed: Now there’s a name you don’t hear very often. I’ll probably even remember it when I see him. What days is he in?
Paige: Oh he’s here frequently.
Ed: Is he?
Chase: You’d also asked us to see who’s the most Trump-like.
Ed: Ah, yes. What’s the verdict there? And how’d you measure it?
Chase: By self-reference, of course.
Ed: Good, just checking. And?
Chase: Conley had the most overt brags. Managed to get out that she was top of her class at West Point, had three bronze stars, was the only candidate who’s worked for Congress, is the best athlete. All in all, we counted 17 self-praisings. Davidson had just 14 and hers tended to be more process-y. Introduced bills, collected the most signatures, created committees, and her biggest thing appears to be that she has experience running—and winning—against Republicans. Which presumably speaks to the “electability” argument. Effie meantime horn-tooted just 8 times by our count.
Ed: And what was your sense of their self-interestedness, generally speaking?
Tip: Claude did some analysis that might shed some light there. He tallied how many times they used the first person singular versus plural. Upshot is that Conley uses the most collective language, and Davidson and Effie are more active on the individualistic framings.
Here are the raw counts—
Ed: I’m confused. Conley had the most self-brags but she speaks the most collectively?
Paige: They are all possessed of contradictions like that. Except on one issue.
Ed: Which is that?
Paige: The one that Effie’s campaign just spotlighted—the fact that Democrats in our district now are more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israelis by a 26 percent margin.
Tip: Mayor Mamdani’s got +64 favorability and meantime AIPAC is underwater by -32.17
Ed: Underwater as in negative? Effie should adjust her yard-signs to read 100% AIPAC-Free.
Chase: I don’t think she can afford yard-signs yet.
Ed: Ah—so she’s the one you want the boss-man to endorse.
Tip: We don’t love her on style. She’s a total MANGO. And a Boomer to boot.
Paige: Gen X, but same difference.
Ed: All right, so what’s the pitch to the chief going to be?
Chase: We’re thinking we’ll start with the stats about the anti-AIPAC stuff. It’s clearly a burgeoning issue, even here in the eighth-most-Jewish community in the world. And then we were thinking we’d give him the links to the Hasan interview and then her appearance on Breaking Points.
Ed: What’s Breaking Points?
Chase: It’s like CNN but for people under forty who aren’t living in fundamentalist households.
Tip: It’s on YouTube. Independent media.
Ed: I’ll take your word for it. Bu—oh, you have it cued up there. Sure, show me what it’s all about.
Paige: This interview took place after the Piker—
Ed: She wears blue-framed glasses.
Chase: So?
Ed: That may be a deal-breaker with the chief. He’s prejudiced against just two groups of people. Those with two first names. And those that wear blue-framed glasses.
Tip: Are you serious?
Ed: He uses Rand Paul to example the former. And Matthew McConaughey the latter
Paige: Did you read McConaughey’s book? That guy is not nice.
Chase: The way he treated that host family in Australia?
Paige: Total douche.
Ed: Anyhow, I’m not speaking to the validity of the chief’s judgment, just saying you should probably not show him that particular clip. And you know he’ll want to know what the case is for the readership?
Tip: Well, our readers take a dim view of the Military-Industrial Complex, yes?
Ed: Or, at least, they haven’t unsubscribed due to our views of it.
Paige: And also they don’t think highly of foreign government influence in our politics.
Chase: Andof the current war and all its current and coming effects. Gas is up more than a buck since March.
Paige: It’s been rising ten cents a week.
Tip: We’ve basically got two centrist Dems indicating fealty to Hakeem Jeffries, one of which calls Israel her homeland, the other who worked cybersecurity for the Biden administration, and both of whom are already taking money from the Israel lobby.
Ed: But does Effie have a chance? I’m not saying the chief’s a pragmatist but . . .
Chase: There are 223,000 registered Democrats in our district. Last midterm primary 37,000 of them (that’s less than one-in-five) bothered voting. If she can get just 235 registered Dems out to vote for her in each of the district’s 57 greater municipalities, that can get her a winning total in a 3-way race. And, if she can get more than the average number of people to go to the polls—like young voters . . .
Ed: That doesn’t seem insurmountable.
Tip: And Trump just jumped in with Lawler, going after her for that signature-gathering issue, the one the judge threw out.18
Ed: Trump went after her? Trump Senior?
Tip: Our President just called Effie a “FRAUDSTER.”
Ed: Does he hate Lawler? Why would he do that? The President’s underwater probably by 40 points up here. Putin going after her would have less effect. Oh, just go show that to the chief. He’ll bless an endorsement. Provided you write it up and it passes copy-edit, of course. He might even give her a Burby award.
Paige: Are we still doing those?
Ed: I think so. Anyhow, godspeed. And don’t show him the blue glasses video. Oh, and we never spoke on this.
Paige: Understood. Thank you, Ed..
Ed: I should go say hello to this new intern. That was some good work. Even if I suspect it will be entirely superfluous. Where’s he sit?
Chase: He’s remote today.
Ed: Well, bring him by my cube next time he’s in. It’s important to encourage the young people. I’ll give him some coasters or a bookmark or a t-shirt or something.
If you would like a free 914 drink coaster or bookmark, please message us your mailing address, or send it to 914editor at gmail. We’ll do our best to fulfill while supplies last.
