[music]

Matt Katz: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Matt Katz from the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom filling in for Brian, who is off today. Coming up on today's show, we're going to hear from Kelly McEvers, who hosts NPR's Embedded podcast about her latest season, which goes deep on the Yonkers Police Department and its attempts at reform, plus monarch butterflies are now officially endangered. We'll talk to a naturalist who will share tips for how you can attract them to your garden, maybe save the species.

Newborn baby blood used to solve crimes years later? I'll have two guests who will explain what that's all about. First, early voting for the August 23rd New York primary starts a week from Saturday. This second primary was scheduled when a judge threw out the state's congressional and state senate district maps for being too rigged to elect Democrats. The new maps have created some very competitive contests. One of the most watched races is among Democrats who are vying to represent the new 12th congressional district.

This district now runs river to river in Manhattan from roughly 14th Street to the upper 90s and 100s. That means both sides of Central Park. It means that longtime incumbents Carolyn Maloney, whose home base has been on the East Side, and Jerrold Nadler, who has represented the West Side, are now in the same district. They met for a debate last night, which aired on WNYC and Spectrum NY1. They were joined by candidate Suraj Patel, who came very close to defeating Maloney in the 2020 primary. The debate was co-moderated by NY1's Errol Louis and by our very own Brigid Bergin, who joins me now. Hey, Brigid. How are you?

Brigid Bergin: Good morning, Matt.

Matt Katz: You did a great job in that debate. I listened to it on WNYC. It was really interesting and we're going to get into it. Listeners, did you watch the debate? Did you listen to it? If you did, did it change your mind at all about who you're supporting, especially if you're voting in this primary? Let us know your reaction and what your decision will hinge on. You can tweet us @BrianLehrer or call us at 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Let's start off, Brigid. I'm going to play three excerpts from the opening statements at the debate.

Carolyn Maloney: I'm Carolyn Maloney. I'm a mother, a former educator, and the congresswoman for the 12th congressional district in New York. I'm a proven progressive leader with a record of delivering results to the city of New York.

Jerry Nadler: Our country stands at a crossroad with our democracy at stake, with a runaway Supreme Court upending 50 years of precedent and eliminating a woman's right to choose and an insurrectionist Republican Party, for the first time in our history, trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

Suraj Patel: 1990s Democrats have lost almost every battle to Mitch McConnell and Republicans. Trumpism is on the rise even if we defeated Trump. To defeat it, we need people with new ideas and energy. Tonight, you're going to hear two distinct arguments from three candidates. Two of them are going to be talking about the past and I'm going to be talking about the future.

Matt Katz: I think we first heard Jerry Nadler, then Carolyn Maloney, and then Suraj Patel. Brigid, Maloney really hit on that theme of delivering results. Nadler also, their experience and the fact that their time in office has given both-- he referred to both himself and Maloney as having this experience and the time that has allowed them to have all this street cred down in Washington. Meanwhile, Suraj Patel was trying to make this a two-way contest between youth, himself, and then age, his opponents. Did they do a good job of sticking to those messages?

Brigid Bergin: In that respect, Matt, I think they really did. It's important to keep in mind not just the two long-term incumbents who are on stage. These are long-term incumbents who are committee chairs of two of the most powerful committees in Congress. Carolyn Maloney chairs the House Oversight Committee. Congressman Nadler chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

These are places where important things in Congress happen. While I think Suraj Patel did demonstrate that he has a lot of ideas, he does have energy. The candidates, when they were ushered into the debate room, were all behind podiums where they had the option to sit or stand at-- Suraj Patel was on his feet, practically on his toes the whole time. Congressman Nadler, he took a seat.

Congressman Maloney, she was standing most of the time. She took a seat briefly at one point, but I think just that sort of visual demonstration of the difference in their energy and vitality was striking. At the same rate, those incumbents could point to the fact that they did have, as Congressman Nadler said, certain clout because they have put in the years in Washington.

Matt Katz: It was fascinating to see Maloney and Nadler really avoid going after each other. You could just imagine the amount of time they've spent together on Capitol Hill, maybe on Amtrak's going back and forth from New York to DC through the years. You and Errol really had to press them on their differences. How is a liberal in Manhattan supposed to choose between these two candidates? Is it awkward for them going up against each other and what was your take in terms of how they handled differentiating themselves from each other last night?

Brigid Bergin: I think, Matt, there is a certain amount of awkwardness. Congresswoman Maloney said more than once, "I hate to be running against my friend." Friend in air quotes, maybe "frenemy," would be a better term. Certainly, they have been allies on issues. Certainly, they have been neighbors in adjoining districts, but these are also individuals who have been in office for 30 years. Congressman Nadler hasn't faced real stiff competition. Congresswoman Maloney has faced primary challenges, including, obviously, Suraj Patel, who has run against her twice before.

She knows that this, for each of them, is an existential fight. Whoever wins this, the loser is not running for office again most likely. I think that that is one of the issues. Then also I think one of the things you saw was they were friendly with each other until they were really forced to distinguish from each other in terms of what they've accomplished in the positions they've taken. When we asked that, since that is the question that I get and that we've heard from voters most often is, how do I choose between these two? I think of them as being essentially so much the same.

They do share positions on so many issues, but there were some votes that they had taken that were very different. Congressman Nadler voted against the Iraq war, against the Patriot Act, and in favor of the Iran deal. Congresswoman Maloney voted the opposite on those particular issues. Those are distinct differences. Then I think Congresswoman Maloney tried to really demonstrate that she has had success bringing resources to her district. Then in some respects, they tried to claim credit for some of the same accomplishments.

Matt Katz: Let's play a clip where there was an accomplishment. This is the infrastructure project, the Second Avenue Subway, and here is Maloney talking about Nadler.

Carolyn Maloney: When he claims credit for getting all the money for the Second Avenue Subway, I wonder, why didn't he get money for his freight tunnel that was in his district? I am so used to people claiming credit for my work. I would just say that it was Truman who said that you can accomplish a great deal if you just share the credit. You don't claim any credit. You can claim all the credit you want. I have now a hundred projects that I've completed. You can claim credit for that too.

Matt Katz: Brigid, that was as contentious as it got between them, wasn't it?

Brigid Bergin: Yes, to set that up a little bit, that was a response to a question about major infrastructure projects that had been underway. They were particularly asked to choose among some upcoming infrastructure or ongoing infrastructure projects and explain how they would get them to the finish line. Specifically, the transformation of Penn Station, the gateway tunnel, and then the completion of East Side access and extension of the Second Avenue subways. That elicited some response in terms of what they have already accomplished.

Congressman Nadler was first to answer. One of the things that he did was claim credit for securing funding for the Second Avenue Subway as the ranking northeast member on the transportation committee. When it was Congresswoman Maloney's opportunity to respond to that, she was very quick to note that he has talked about the need for this freight tunnel. It's something that he has talked about for years and years. That is actually in his former 10th district, the west side of the district, and that is not completed.

She was essentially pointing to the fact that the infrastructure project that she was putting her effort behind is something that has come further along than this thing that he has been talking about for so many years. Then I think if you really listen to how she frames her response there, the way I heard it, and perhaps that is in part because I am a woman reporter listening to her response, I felt like part of what she was saying there also was men are always claiming credit for something a woman does. I think there was that implication in her response as well.

Matt Katz: As the only woman on the stage last night, she was certainly making that distinction there. Listeners, if you watched last night's debate, if you're in this new district and you want to ask Brigid a question about her job covering this whole campaign and also moderating this debate last night, give us a call. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Let's go to Mike on the Upper West Side. Mike's in Nadlerville up there on the west side of Manhattan in the base for Jerry Nadler. Hi there, Mike. Thanks for calling in.

Mike: Thank you. I am indeed in Nadlerville and I will be supporting him. I think it's unfortunate that we have two strong incumbents like this having to compete against one another. That said, I didn't think Jerry Nadler had a particularly strong debate, but I think it was just an off evening. It certainly doesn't discount his strong progressive voting record. On that, I just wanted to say, I think Carolyn Maloney at one point said that she and Nadler were tied for a progressive voting record. I did look that up. Nadler ranks about a 30. She's somewhere over 100, so I'm not sure what her claim there was.

Matt Katz: Thank you, Mike. Brigid, can you fact-check that for us? Does one candidate or the other have a particularly more progressive record?

Brigid Bergin: Well, I haven't looked up. I don't know where Mike looked up that stat. What I can say is, certainly, Congressman Nadler has picked up some of the more progressive endorsements in this race. The Working Families Party was out of the gate right after the new redistricting maps were out. It showed that Nadler and Maloney were going to be drawn into the same district. The Working Families Party was right behind Nadler. Senator Elizabeth Warren is one of his big supporters. I think that speaks to a sense that he is among the most progressive candidates in this race.

Matt Katz: Mike was saying that Nadler did not have a strong performance. I don't know exactly what he was referring to, but I do know that there was a gaffe that Nadler made that was particularly notable, right?

Brigid Bergin: Yes, I think Mike is right that even as he is a supporter of Nadler, it would be hard to say that that was a great debate night for the congressman. In his opening statement, he talked about how he had been the lead on the two Bush impeachment trials. Clearly, he was referring to the Trump impeachments. There were a few other moments where he just seemed a bit less engaged, maybe a little step off the other candidates.

There was a question at one point where Suraj Patel-- part of the rules for the debate where that if you were mentioned by the candidates, you had the opportunity to respond. Suraj Patel mentioned both members of Congress in his response at one point. Maloney was very quick to want to respond to that. Then when I offered Congressman Nadler the opportunity to respond, it almost seemed to surprise him. He just declined to say anything else.

Matt Katz: We should note by the way that there's another woman on the ballot, Ashmi Sheth, but she didn't qualify for the debate. There are two women on the ballot. Suraj Patel would be the first Indian American to represent the city in Congress, which is an interesting point. Then Jerry Nadler, if he were to lose, there would be no Jewish members of the New York City delegation left in Congress. Did those identity issues come up at all? I'm sure it is a concern for some Jewish voters to not have Jewish representation from New York in Congress. Did Nadler make any sort of appeal in that regard?

Brigid Bergin: He really didn't. He leaned more into the seniority, the clout, the expertise that he brought to the position. At one point, Suraj Patel talks about how he had written an op-ed and the topic is escaping me. Congressman Nadler had a jolt of energy and said, "I didn't write an op-ed. I picked up the phone and called the president." It really distinguished between the stature of these people who are debating for the same position.

In terms of identity, I think we heard some from Congressman Maloney, as we mentioned before, maybe somewhat subtly, referencing the way she as a woman leader maybe was fighting against perceptions or fighting against the idea that she doesn't get credit for the work that she does. She made the strong point that she felt like she's never been sharper, she's never been more effective.

She had a very strong performance last night. We also heard her in her opening statement referred to being a mother. I think that was some good context, but I don't think it was something she hammered home too much. Then the real obvious difference was this idea of long-term incumbents who are in their 70s versus this new generation of leadership bringing new ideas and new representation to this district.

Matt Katz: The notable exchange involving Maloney came at the top. Your first question to the candidates was about monkeypox, which led to one of Suraj Patel's chief attacks on Maloney that she has, over her time in Congress, questioned vaccine safety. Let's hear a little bit of that question and her response.

Brigid Bergin: Ms. Maloney, during your time in office, you raised questions about the connection between certain childhood vaccines and autism. Scientists have resoundingly said there is no link between autism and vaccines. Given the ongoing challenge posed by vaccine hesitancy related to the COVID-19 vaccine, did you spread misinformation about vaccines?

Carolyn Maloney: Absolutely not. You're referring to something I said in a hearing roughly 20 years ago. I support vaccines. I support the science behind vaccines.

Matt Katz: Patel then countered.

Suraj Patel: In 2015, Congresswoman Maloney introduced the vaccine bill with Ron Paul of all people. In 2005, she was in an anti-vaccine rally. In 2009, she was in an anti-vaccine rally with Jenny McCarthy. She introduced nine different bills. Even if we grant the simple idea that all we were doing was studying, the fact of the matter is that these were proven safe decades ago.

Matt Katz: Then she responded.

Carolyn Maloney: I did go on a bill that was for a study and that was 20 years ago. Look at my record. What have you done? Achievements speak louder than words.

Matt Katz: "What have you done?" Brigid, can you fact-check some of these words? This is a big deal. In a COVID era, monkeypox era, vaccines, does Maloney have an anti-vax history that's relevant in 2022?

Brigid Bergin: Suraj was referring to some of the more controversial positions Congresswoman Maloney has taken. She did raise questions about the connection between certain childhood vaccines and the increased risk of autism. Why were children given so many vaccines at the same time? This was not a singular question or a singular moment. This was over a period of years.

As far back is the early 2000s and as recently in the 2015-2016 Congress when she was on a piece of legislation, where the language states it would require a comprehensive study comparing total health outcomes, including risk of autism in vaccinated populations in the United States versus unvaccinated populations in the United States. I don't think it is an unfair question at this point.

One of the things I don't think we got an answer to is, what was driving this line of inquiry? Her response was a little flip by the end of it where she didn't quite apologize for raising these questions but said, "If we can't just study things anymore, what's becoming of us essentially?" This was after there was mountains of scientific evidence that indicated there was no connection between these childhood vaccinations and autism.

I think given, as you said, in an era of COVID, in an era of monkeypox, it is a completely relevant and valid question to press on. In her defense, she also has brought vaccine resources into her current district. I think that is a fair thing for her to respond with. It doesn't answer the question though however about why she was raising this other question, which has really contributed to the growth of the anti-vax movement dating back to 2008-2009.

Suraj invoked this particular rally where Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey were there. This is a movement that you can draw this line between people who are resisting childhood vaccinations. Now, we are seeing diseases that were at one point eliminated if not eradicated from parts of the country reemerging. I think it's a very fair question.

Matt Katz: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Matt Katz from the WNYC newsroom filling in for Brian. We're talking to senior politics reporter Brigid Bergin about last night's debate involving candidates from the 10th congressional district. We are going to play a clip. This involves Joe Biden and it was a very interesting exchange. This is moderator Errol Louis, your co-moderator, asking about whether Biden should run for re-election.

Errol Louis: Should President Biden run again in 2024? Yes, Mr. Nadler.

Jerry Nadler: Too early to say. It doesn't serve the purpose of the Democratic Party to deal with that until after the midterms.

Errol Louis: Ms. Maloney?

Carolyn Maloney: I don't believe he's running for re-election.

Matt Katz: "I don't believe he's running for re-election." That's breaking news. She walked it back. What happened there?

Brigid Bergin: She has since tried to say that if he is running for re-election, she would absolutely support him. It was a bit of a jaw-dropping moment. For context, it's important to remember that Suraj Patel worked on the Obama campaign and obviously, therefore, has some connections to President Biden since he was President Obama's vice president.

To have two long-serving members of the Democratic delegation within Congress, basically both not coming out with a full-throated endorsement suggests that there's real conversations happening about President Biden's future. Certainly, Congresswoman Maloney went a little bit further, I think, than perhaps even she intended to at the time, but I think it's probably a window into what's really happening in the beltway. It was great to have some news in a debate.

Matt Katz: Sure, we actually have a caller who wanted to talk about that. Mark in Inwood. How are you doing, Mark?

Mark: Great. Hi, can you hear me?

Matt Katz: Yes, absolutely.

Mark: Okay, thanks for having me. Thanks for taking my call. I listened to the entire debate last night and I was impressed with Carolyn Maloney. I thought she was very energetic and very experienced. A great combination. This response to this question, to me, I think we have to listen carefully to the language. Errol Louis asked whether Biden should run again. Carolyn Maloney didn't answer that question, but her response was predictive. She thought that he was not running. Of course, Biden isn't going to announce this prior to midterms. He's going to take this dance and he's going to run.

I think there's a lot of people, both in and out of political circles, that believe he's not going to run again. She, I think, gave a very direct and honest answer that she thinks that he's not going to run again. As she is now clarifying, it's not a question of whether or not she's supporting him. Of course, I'm sure she'd support an incumbent Democratic president nominee as a party. She made a prediction that he's not running again. I think a lot of people believe this. I don't think that this should be interpreted as a lack of support for him. She'd support him if he's running. She thinks he's not going to.

Matt Katz: Got it. She was giving some astute political analysis, but maybe not. Maybe a bit of a distraction for debate purposes. Thanks a lot for calling, Mark. Appreciate it. Brigid, we're going to take a quick break, and then we're going to get back to you. More on this debate with my guest and colleague, Brigid Bergin, in just a moment.

[music]

Matt Katz: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Matt Katz filling in for Brian, who's off today. We're talking to Brigid Bergin about last night's debate, which she co-moderated among the leading contenders in the 10th congressional district's Democratic primary. Okay, so, Brigid, Congressman Nadler is the chair of the judiciary committee while Carolyn Maloney chairs the house oversight and reform committee, both key spots. Suraj Patel, he's the newcomer. He points to fresh ideas and the need for younger voices in the Capitol. Here's how Nadler responds to that.

Jerry Nadler: With seniority comes clout and the ability to get things done. That's the way Congress works. Seniority brings you clout. It brings you the ability to get things done. Some people use it more effectively than others, but I think both Carolyn and I have used that clout very effectively.

Matt Katz: Brigid, this is a key question in the race. It's experience versus new ideas. Did Suraj Patel have new ideas that he was able to counter to the clout that Nadler and Maloney said that they bring to the job?

Brigid Bergin: If you go to his website, he has an idea for everything. He has policies for addressing everything from climate to-- Actually, that was one of the issues that I thought was really interesting. When we talked about the environment, we asked about different ways to address the flood-prone infrastructure in New York. Congressman Nadler talked about building seawalls, whereas Suraj Patel talked about reimagining the New York Harbor, which is less of an actual freight harbor than it used to be.

Restoring the habitat there with oysters and the types of living things that can help absorb and essentially serve as a sponge as more ecologically friendly ways to help protect the environment and to protect New York, it was one of a series of different ideas he offered. I don't think that there's any question that Patel offers a lot of new approaches and new ideas for how to address some of the issues within the district. The question though always is, what can you actually get done?

Because when you are a new member and, likely, a new member who will be in the minority if things turn out as predicted, that's obviously unsure. If Democrats go into the minority, then you go into this new seat as a freshman member in the minority. It takes a lot of work to get things done. I think he envisioned himself in the shadow or in the footsteps of Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, Congress members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ritchie Torres and saw a way to carve a path, but it is very hard. There's a reason why Congress members Nadler and Maloney are chairs of committees after being in this body for 30 years. You have to build up that street cred.

Matt Katz: Yes, and he brought up those newer members of Congress by name. Let's go to a caller who is outside of the district but wants to, I think, talk about the impact of this race writ large. Eric in North Bergen, New Jersey. Hey there, Eric.

Eric: Hi there, Mr. Katz. I follow you. Ms. Bergin, I'm a huge fan. Thank you both for your effort. I listened to the whole debate last night. Credit to Ms. Bergin for [laughs] her questions and keeping all of our attention. I thought it was a great debate. Part of their camaraderie with each other leads me to my question. I'm so sorry to lose either Ms. Maloney or Mr. Nadler. I loved what Patel had to say.

While I'm not a New Yorker, I think the two leading candidates in question are national figures. I think it's very lamentable for the Democratic Party as a whole that we're forced with this conundrum where one of them will be lost, considering their clout, considering the arguments they made for their expertise and their excellent record, progressive record. I want maybe both of you to have a short conversation on the tragedy that the Democratic Party is suffering under this sudden development in the district.

Matt Katz: Yes, it was really sudden. Thank you very much for the call, Eric. Little background here, Brigid. How did this happen? [chuckles] Why are we in this strange predicament where Democrats in August are being forced to choose between two members of Congress and kicking one out after 30 years?

Brigid Bergin: Well, we will not be able to talk about this enough, but it all goes back to redistricting. That is the process that comes up every 10 years to redraw district lines based on the latest census data. Often, if you read stories outside of New York, there's been a lot of complaints, concerns about partisan gerrymandering, particularly in red states where Republican legislatures have drawn their districts to favor Republican members. While here in New York, we have a Democratic supermajority in the state legislature.

Now, initially, what was supposed to happen is there was, in theory, going to be a bipartisan, apolitical effort to redraw these districts. There was an independent redistricting commission that had been established. Because of the membership of that commission, they ended up failing at their effort and produced two sets of maps. Because of that, the state legislature took over, drew its own maps, drew them to favor Democrats, and they were sued. It went to the highest court in the state.

Ultimately, the ruling was that this was partisan gerrymandering. New districts needed to be drawn. A special master and expert in district drawing and mapmaking was brought in from Pittsburgh, a professor named Jonathan Cervas who redrew these maps, and did not, by any account, really take into consideration incumbents. That is how we ended up with a new 12th congressional district that stretches across Manhattan, as you mentioned before, doing the unthinkable of uniting the east and west sides into one district.

If you go back and look at the history of the districts in Manhattan, it is almost unthinkable. There's a distinct character to the east and west sides of Manhattan. Going back as far as maps that I could find online before 1953, they had separate representatives. For a very long time, the district that included the Upper East Side also included portions of Queens and Brooklyn. That really changes the character of the district. You even heard Maloney refer to some of that last night in terms of the different communities that she has been representing.

Matt Katz: She said she was sad about losing these communities in Brooklyn and Queens because of this redistricting.

Brigid Bergin: I think to Eric's point like, "How did we end up here?" Well, we ended up here because we had a district drawn with two members living and representing portions of that district and neither one wanted to run in a different district. Now, of course, one of them could have run in the open 10th congressional district that currently has 13 candidates on the ballot at one point.

Even former Mayor Bill de Blasio was one of the active candidates running. There's no incumbent there. There is another member of Congress running, I should note. Of course, Mondaire Jones, who used to represent the 17th congressional district in the Hudson Valley, decided to come down into this city as opposed to challenge Sean Patrick Maloney, who is also the head of the DCCC.

There is a case to be made that either Congressman Nadler, whose portions of his current district fall within the new 10th district, could have made the case. He could have been running as the congressman from the 10th district because that is the current district he represents. You could potentially make the case that Maloney could have also run in that district, but they both live in the current 12th.

Their bases are Nadler's the Upper West Side, Maloney's the Upper East Side. After 30 years of representing these respective districts, I think it's a pretty big leap, but I do understand and I will tell. The caller is echoing what I hear from so many voters which is, why? Why do we have to choose? It's going to be fascinating to see how they make that decision come August 23rd.

Matt Katz: Sure, and then the other big variable here is it's an August primary, August in New York. Who's going to turn out for this? Is this going to be really a turnout question when it comes to who wins this four-person primary?

Brigid Bergin: I think, Matt, any election in New York that is not a presidential election is a turnout question. We have primaries and special elections at this point, what feels like scattered throughout the year. It will really be about who has the ground game to get voters to apply for absentee ballots if they are decamped to wherever they are for the summer or to show up for the nine days of early voting or on primary day.

I think it's going to take a lot of work from all of these campaigns, but I do think unlike perhaps some of these state Senate primaries that maybe are getting less attention, the advantage in this particular race is it's certainly getting a lot of attention. The voters in this district are more likely to have had a contact with a candidate or a volunteer. That should help turn out to some degree, but we're talking dog days of summer. This is when people are out in The Hamptons or up in Hudson Valley or wherever they go right before school begins.

Matt Katz: Right. Exactly right. It feels like one of the least populated weeks in New York City like third week in August.

Brigid Bergin: [chuckles] Absolutely.

Matt Katz: Then, obviously, there's early voting though, correct?

Brigid Bergin: Yes, absolutely. Early voting starts August 13th. It runs through August 21st, I believe. There's one day, yes--

Matt Katz: If you're going away and you're on the Upper West Side or the Upper East Side, then do the early voting and then you don't have to worry about it, right?

Brigid Bergin: That's right. Technically, you can still apply for an absentee ballot walking into the Board of Elections up until the day before primary day. If you've got a trip where you're heading out of town on the 23rd and you were really busy during all of early voting, you could still go to your BOE office on the 22nd and apply for an absentee ballot and fill it out in the office.

Matt Katz: Yes, amazing. Brigid Bergin is our elections expert, our politics expert, and was the moderator for last night's debate for the 10th congressional district's Democratic primary.

Brigid Bergin: The 12th.

Matt Katz: Oh wait. Right, the 12th is this one. This one we've been talking about.

Brigid Bergin: 12th is Manhattan.

Matt Katz: The 10th is the crowded one.

Brigid Bergin: Next week's the 10th, the wild and willy 10th congressional district. [chuckles]

Matt Katz: Is there a debate coming for that?

Brigid Bergin: Yes, next Wednesday. Again, Errol Louis and I will be moderating a debate with six of the candidates in that 10th congressional district and that's the one. That's Lower Manhattan and stretches across the waterfront in Brooklyn all the way into neighborhoods like Park Slope and Borough Park and Sunset Park. It's a really interesting, exciting race, very dynamic candidates. Imagine the three candidates who went back and forth and multiply that by two. They'll be six. We're going to try to get as much substance from them as we were able to get from the candidates last night. That'll also be on WNYC and on Spectrum NY1 starting at 7:00 and that will be a two-hour debate.

Matt Katz: Wow, amazing. Can't wait. Thanks, Brigid. Appreciate it.

Brigid Bergin: Thank you.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.