Stefanik set to run for NY governor
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) is preparing to officially launch her campaign for New York governor, according to two sources familiar with her thinking.
The sources told The Hill that it's not a matter of if but when Stefanik launches her campaign. The sources added that the congresswoman will announce her campaign at the time and place of her choosing.
Speculation has been swirling for months over whether Stefanik, a close ally of President Trump, would seek the top executive office in the Empire State.
Polling shows her leading a hypothetical Republican primary. A poll conducted by GrayHouse found that Stefanik has a commanding lead over fellow Rep. Mike Lawler (D-N.Y.), who is considering a run, among GOP primary voters, 44 percent to 7 percent. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman secured 5 percent support. The margin of error is 5 percentage points.
Last month, President Trump endorsed Lawler and Blakeman for reelection in their respective posts, raising speculation that he was seeking to clear the field for Stefanik.
Republicans say they have reason to be optimistic in the Empire State.
The party made gains in New York, which is considered a reliably blue state, in the last two elections. Trump lost the state by just over 12 points last year, improving his 2020 margin by 23 points. Hochul, who stepped into her role as governor in 2021, defeated Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin by roughly six points.
But the eventual Republican gubernatorial nominee will still face headwinds in New York. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the race as 'likely Democratic.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
29 minutes ago
- Politico
‘This Really Terrible Doom Loop': A Reality Check on the Iran Strikes
In the hours after U.S. warplanes struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, President Donald Trump was quick to announce that the country's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'totally obliterated.' Then came a leak to the media: A preliminary intelligence assessment had found important sites were not destroyed, calling into question the impact on Iran's nuclear program. The revelations fueled an uproar and put Trump on the defensive, as top U.S. officials rushed to release further details about the bombings. So, were the strikes a success, or should we still be worried about Iran's nuclear capabilities? Perhaps both, according to Beth Sanner, a longtime intelligence official who frequently delivered Trump's intelligence brief during his first term in office. 'We can have two things be true,' Sanner said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. 'We can have it be true that the bombing campaign was successful in destroying particular facilities or capabilities at particular facilities, and we still have questions about the Iran nuclear program and what might be left.' Ordinarily, it would take weeks to put together a comprehensive picture about the impact of a strike like this, said Sanner, who previously served as deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration, overseeing the parts of the intelligence community that coordinate and lead collection and analysis across the U.S. spy agencies. But the political news cycle won't wait that long. And now there's another danger: If the intelligence community ultimately determines the strikes weren't effective or Iran was able to get its enriched uranium out of the way, the administration may now be far less likely to publicly admit it. 'This is where we are,' she said. 'It makes it really hard to do the right thing.' This interview has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with the preliminary damage assessment produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency that was first reported by CNN. How are these initial assessments put together, and how much stock would you put in a preliminary assessment so soon after a strike like this? I'll answer the second part first. How I would take it is with a grain of salt. It will say upfront, very clearly, what the limitations are of this. And this is why having somebody leak something like this is not only illegal and should not be done — no offense to all the journalists out there — but it's also hugely unhelpful because it's confusing to people. No one even knows exactly what it said. They don't have a copy of it. I think there is a lot of confusion that's raised by something like this, and it's really not designed for public distribution, or even wide distribution among people who aren't making decisions. An initial bomb damage assessment is an initial look at these sorts of things. It is really designed for operators and for policymakers to decide what their next move is. It's for tactical decision making. It's not for strategic decision making. In other words, did we miss something? Do we need to go back? What kind of information streams will intelligence officials be looking at in the wake of a strike like this, and how long would it normally take to put a fulsome assessment together of its impact? On something like this, one should understand that each assessment, no matter when it's put out, it's not going to stop in time. There will be a continuation of a gathering of information. More information will be found, even after a very fulsome assessment is done, and nobody just shuts down and says, 'We're done.' I think it will take a couple weeks to do a really good job. This type of assessment is generally done by the National Intelligence Council to take a complete intelligence community view. You want to have the input from all the different expertise that's quite varied, and the sources of intelligence that are quite varied across the entire intelligence community. From instrumentation, measuring things, overhead collection, SIGINT [signals intelligence], intercepts of conversations, human intelligence. That human intelligence might be from liaison services. In other words, our friends and allies, partners, open source — somebody took pictures — all sorts of things. And it's also going to take in all of the disciplines, we call them in the intelligence community, meaning different kinds of expertise. So you'll have nuclear scientists, you'll have specialists in missiles, you'll have leadership analysts looking at the hierarchy of the scientific community that's been eliminated and who's left, what's their expertise? Trump has said repeatedly that Iran's nuclear facilities have been 'obliterated.' Is that too strong a word to use at this stage? From his comments at the NATO summit, somebody used that word with him, he says, and it was repeated by him, and I think now we're in this really terrible doom loop where we're having a conversation — this battle between obliterated and not obliterated — and in fact, we're obliterating the nuance in the way that this conversation is going. We should probably be focused less on that word and try to develop a broader vocabulary to capture the fact that we can have two things be true. We can have it be true that the bombing campaign was successful in destroying particular facilities or capabilities at particular facilities, and we still have questions about the Iran nuclear program and what might be left outside of these areas that were bombed, because the program is more than these three facilities. Staying on the point about vocabulary, both CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released statements Wednesday stating that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'destroyed.' What did you make of their decision to issue those statements? I've been on the other end of editing these things myself, going over each word. These are carefully crafted and worded to be analytically true, but also to, in this case I believe, to reinforce the administration's narrative that this was successful. I think that it was successful, but I also have major concerns about what's left. So when I look at that statement, it says that the program has been severely damaged, and it says several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years. I think that these are true statements, but they're designed to check the box and support the narrative while also staying true to the facts, given the controversy. So it sounds like you're saying that it's likely true that these sites that were struck have been destroyed, but that there still is potentially a lot we don't know about Iran's nuclear program at this point and its status. I think when you look at the words very, very carefully, which I am trained to do, [it says] 'several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed.' It does not say that Fordo was destroyed completely. It does not say that Isfahan and Natanz were destroyed completely. It says 'several nuclear facilities,' and that is true. The Arak plutonium plant has been destroyed, the Isfahan metal conversion plant, the Natanz centrifuge facility, some production lines, etc. So I don't think that these statements say that Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed. It says facilities. What key questions remain unanswered for you at this point, based on what we know publicly? We need to know some practical things about what is left in Iran's knowledge and capacity to build a bomb. You can't bomb away knowledge. We need to know what Iran's intent is. What is their leadership's intent? Do they intend to now try harder than ever to put their nuclear weapons program underground to produce that weapon, even if it takes years? Because they have been taught a lesson that is as clear as day — that being a threshold state does not protect them, only a nuclear weapon would. Knowing where the details of where things are, what's their capacity and remaining capability, and then what is their intent. And then going into these negotiations that [Special Envoy] Steve Witkoff says will happen, we want to know some very specific things about what Iran's red lines are and the ability to work through those things so we can get to a peaceful solution. The administration has been quick to say that Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed, but they've said a lot less about the whereabouts of Iran's highly enriched uranium. Tehran was thought to have some 400 kilograms of enriched uranium before the strikes. Do you think that the administration or the intelligence community knows what happened to those stockpiles? What I'm worried about, in part, is the pressure on the administration to say more than they should say about this issue, because that could reveal sources and methods that make it harder for us to track these things. And the more they feel that they have to defend themselves, the more they're likely to spill the beans that will be a problem in the future for protecting our national security. That said, what you're seeing from the Israelis, and some statements by the Americans, is that the HEU [highly enriched uranium] has been buried. In other words, it's underneath these tunnels, under Isfahan and under Fordo and under Natanz. I don't know if we have fidelity on that. Probably once Israel was in the skies over Iran, the ability to track what was happening at those facilities was very high. The question for me is whether some of that material was moved before we had that kind of ability — the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that we had from Israel once they went in. To your point, there have been reports about trucks being seen outside of Fordo ahead of the U.S. strikes, which raised speculation that the regime may have spirited some of its uranium out of harm's way. I will also say here that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Thursday morning that he has seen no intelligence to suggest that the uranium was moved. I've also heard speculation that Iran may have other undeclared nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, Iran's parliament also voted to halt IAEA inspections. Is there a risk that U.S. officials will now have less visibility about Iran's nuclear capabilities and intentions in the wake of these strikes, if Iran feels the need to move it further into the shadows? Yes and no. I would say that we know that Israeli penetration of Iranian intelligence services is just very, very heightened. I would say that the unhappiness with the regime and the inability to protect Iran is probably going to increase the ability to recruit officials and find more information. But they're also going to be a lot more careful. Maybe some of our disclosures are going to make our SIGINT [signals intelligence] collection more difficult. Those 16 trucks, that happened when we had a very close eye on Fordo. Maybe they didn't spirit away HEU, but that's not where most of it was stored anyway. Maybe they spirited away something else. Maybe, as some have suggested, they were trying to put cement over those entrance ways to protect it more, so lots can happen. We were following those trucks, I'm confident. Other things that happened before are more worrisome. Such as? We don't know what has happened before. In mid-May, the Iranians sent a letter to the UN, and they threatened to move their HEU and other special parts of their program. I don't think they said it specifically to another facility. Then they said, in another statement, in response to the IAEA censure against them, that they were going to open a third enrichment site and move their HEU. So I think that this idea that there might be a covert facility somewhere else is something that is a very reasonable question to be asked, because they've telegraphed that, and people have been talking about that for years. Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intelligence community assessed that Iran was not looking to build a nuclear weapon, but did have an unprecedented amount of enriched uranium for a non-nuclear power. I understand that there is debate about that assessment in intelligence circles, and I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about the main schools of thought on Iran's intentions with its nuclear enrichment and why this is such a hard question to answer. It's hard unless you have exquisite access to exactly what the Supreme Leader has said and ordered. The conventional interpretation of that statement is that, yes, there's been a lot of work done to prepare to make a weapon, but the final order to actually sprint to build a bomb had not been given. The problem with it is that can all be true today, but that Iran was getting so close to being able to weaponize, it didn't matter whether that order to go for it or not had been made. It was close enough that somebody had to do something to put a stop to that process. And so it can be an esoteric, semantic debate at some point, and that's certainly been the Israeli argument. What do you make of recent reports that Trump has grown frustrated with Tulsi Gabbard? Is she able to do her job as DNI if she lacks Trump's confidence? That's a very tricky question, and I try not to criticize anybody personally in government. I try to limit myself to policies rather than people. I don't want to be one of these pundits. But I would say that the healthy relationship between the head of intelligence and the president is very important to national security, because if the president cannot listen and hear the intelligence community, then we have a problem. When I was briefing President Trump, even in the days when, on the outside, it looked like things were very bad between the intelligence leadership and the president, I was always welcomed into the Oval Office and able to give my briefing. And if you get to a point where he cannot have that happen, where that's closed off, then I think things have to change. Maybe that's why Director [Dan] Coats decided to resign. This leak has kind of put the administration on the defensive, and they've been very quick to issue further assessments. How confident are you that if there was intelligence that the strikes hadn't been fully effective, or Iran was able to get its enriched uranium out of the way, or that their nuclear facilities weren't completely destroyed, that the administration would actually admit that publicly now, given that they have rushed out to say that it's been destroyed? Yep, this is where we are. It makes it really hard to do the right thing. Because any assessment that equates the bombing with the nuclear program is the problem. They are not the same thing, and they need to be separated out. We can have a win on the bombing, but still have issues that we need to deal with on Iran's threat. And that is what the next phase of negotiations will be, and the bombing, hopefully, has created conditions where that can happen. So that's where I would try to shift the narrative here. Well, Trump said yesterday he doesn't even feel the need to have a deal with Iran anymore. Yes, and that needs to change. I think that the fact that Witkoff is empowered, and he said yesterday that we are shooting for a comprehensive peace agreement, that gives me hope.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mayor Adams, in campaign kickoff, attacks Mamdani as a ‘silver spoon' candidate
Mayor Adams formally launched his mayoral campaign Thursday with a sharp attack on presumptive Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani as the incumbent deals with strong headwinds ranging from the fallout over his now-dismissed criminal indictment to accusations of being too tight with President Trump. Despite those — and other — challenges, the political ground has shifted somewhat in the last few days. Adams' independent bid potentially stands to gain from Mamdani's stunning defeat of Andrew Cuomo, with Adams and Cuomo sharing similar stands on a number of key issues and the mayor offering an alternative to Mamdani's progressive political platform. The mayor, who has largely stayed out of the campaign fray until now, slammed Mamdani as privileged and attacked some of his campaign promises while focusing on his own record over the last four years. 'This election is a choice between a candidate with a blue collar and one with a suit and silver spoon,' the mayor said. 'A choice between dirty fingernails and manicured nails. It is a choice between someone who's delivered lower crime, the most jobs in history, the most new housing built in decades than an assembly member who did not pass a bill.' Mamdani has, in fact, sponsored three bills that were signed into law. The democratic socialist has centered his campaign on affordability, pledging that as mayor, he'd work to make buses and childcare free. 'When we launched this campaign, we did so to defeat Eric Adams' second term,' Mamdani said in a statement in response to the mayor's speech. 'New Yorkers have been suffocated by a cost of living crisis and this Mayor has taken almost every opportunity to exacerbate it, all while partnering with Donald Trump to tear our city apart.' After Mamdani's victory on Tuesday, some of the city's business leaders have indicated that they might throw their support behind the mayor as their best shot at defeating Mamdani, who's said he'll push to raise taxes on the city's top 1%. Mamdani has also been accused of bolstering anti-semitism due to his statements on Israel's war in Gaza. Cuomo, who's secured his own independent line on the November ballot, has not formally said whether he will stay in the race, but sources are saying it is unlikely he will. At Thursday's event, attended by hundreds of Adams' backers hoisting signs reading 'Re-elect Eric,' the mayor was surrounded by many of his most steadfast supporters. Inez Dickens, a former state assemblymember, served as emcee. Faith leaders played a prominent role. 'We pray this morning, Father God, that a fresh wind would blow over New York, a wind of hope, a wind of love and a wind of justice for your people,' Bishop Dr. Chantel R. Wright said in an opening prayer. Mijal Bitton, a Jewish leader, said the race was not about party lines but instead 'about those who want to build and those who want to burn down,' referring to Mamdani. Rev. Herbert Daughtry, who stood by the mayor's side when he was indicted, was also there. Fernando Cabrera, a controversial pastor and former councilmember who has spoken out against gay marriage, made remarks. The rally, steps from the mayor's offices at City Hall, was attended by several administration staffers, including Deputy Chief of Staff Menashe Shapiro, who was working for the campaign, Department of Transportation Commissioner Ydanis Rodriguez, Erick Salgado, an immigrant affairs employee. David Johnson, or DJ, an assistant to the mayor, helped wrangle the mayor's supporters. Brianna Suggs, a major fundraiser for Adams during his 2021 run who was raided in connection with the federal investigation into Adams, organized the campaign launch. Former administration official Winnie Greco, whose homes were also raided by the feds, helped organize a group of Chinese New Yorkers wearing 'AAPI for Mayor Adams' t-shirts with messages of support in six languages. To secure a victory in November, Adams, whose approval ratings have hit historic lows, would likely have to widen his base with help form the city's unions, members of the city's political class and industry leaders. In 2021, Adams — who centered his campaign that year on a law-and-order message — enjoyed the support of some of the city's most important political institutions, including DC 37, New York's largest public sector union. In 2021, Adams was also endorsed by powerbrokers like Brooklyn Democratic Party boss Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn. This time around, DC 37 has already announced it's backing Mamdani in the general election. Several other powerhouse unions that supported Adams in 2021, like 32 BJ and the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, could follow DC 37's lead and throw their weight behind Mamdani, sources familiar with the matter told the Daily News on Thursday. In running against him, Mamdani is expected to paint Adams as a pawn to Trump in a city where the Republican president is deeply unpopular. Trump's Department of Justice in April secured a dismissal of Adams' indictment as part of a deal that many believe left the mayor beholden to Trump's agenda. Since then, Adams has developed a relationship with Trump, including by visiting him at the White House last month. The event was marked by protests as well. Pro-Luigi Mangione protestors loudly booed throughout the event, prompting Adams' own supporters to chant dueling cheers. 'We utilize the letter F for Faith, our opponents use the letter F for Profanity,' Adams said after protesters interrupted him, calling him a 'f——g criminal' and saying he had 'sold' out the city to Trump.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nate Morris announces run for Sen. Mitch McConnell's seat
A Kentucky businessman is throwing his name into the Republican field of candidates to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell, who is retiring at the end of his current term. Nate Morris, chairman and chief executive officer of Morris Industries, announced June 26 on Donald Trump Jr.'s podcast show, "Triggered with Don Jr.," he will make a bid for the U.S. Senate. "I think it's time to take out the trash in Washington, D.C., and bring someone new, somebody from the outside, somebody that's not a career politician and most importantly, someone that's only beholden to the people, not to McConnell cronies and the people that have been occupying this seat through McConnell over the last 40 years," Morris said. Morris, who has never served in public office but has been involved in Kentucky politics, runs a privately held conglomerate in Lexington. According to its website, the company "reimagines the industrial economy while leveraging the power of business to solve some of America's biggest challenges, including the environment and national security." Morris has also worked with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, with POLITICO calling Morris "a door-opener for Paul with big-money GOP donors." He touted his background as a ninth-generation Kentuckian, saying he and his family have been "fighting and scrapping for everything we have." "Like most Kentuckians, 19 of my family members worked at an auto plant, and I've been able to live the American dream because of how great this country is," Morris said. Morris has taken jabs at McConnell in the past, including in a recent social media post where he criticized the senator for voting against the confirmation of Pete Hegseth as U.S. secretary of defense. He was critical of McConnell during his campaign announcement, saying that McConnell's legacy will be known in Kentucky and around the country as someone who was "sabotaging Trump's agenda." "I look at Mitch McConnell as the final boss for (Trump) to defeat, and I think he's going to do it right here in Kentucky and elect an America First candidate to carry on his legacy in the Bluegrass state," Morris said. Morris joins current U.S. Rep. Andy Barr and former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron who have previously announced they will run in the GOP primary election for McConnell's seat. McConnell had announced in February that he will not seek reelection in 2026. He joined the U.S. Senate in 1984 and served as the GOP's leader in the chamber from 2007-24 before giving up the position to Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. His time as Senate leader is the longest by a member of any party in history. Cameron wasted no time and shared he would be running minutes after McConnell said he wouldn't seek reelection. Barr, who has represented Kentucky's Sixth Congressional District since 2013, announced he would also run for the Senate seat. On the Democratic side, state Rep. Pamela Stevenson launched her campaign in April. She has represented House District 43 in Frankfort since 2021 and has a background as a colonel in the U.S. Air Force. The primaries are set to take place on May 19, 2026, before the general election later that year on Nov. 3. Reach reporter Hannah Pinski at hpinski@ or follow her on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @hannahpinski. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Nate Morris announces bid for Mitch McConnell's Senate seat
