Gothamist78%

Micah Lasher wins crowded Democratic primary for Manhattan U.S. House seat 17%

By Jon Campbell0% Walter Wuthmann0%

6/24/2026, 2:15:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Fundamental Attribution Error, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 25.9% saturation with 126 hits. Analysis detected 724 faulty-reasoning hits from 487 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33% and a BS Rank of 17% (16,981 of 20,370 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.40% of the article peer group.

Micah Lasher won the eight-way Democratic primary to represent New York’s 12th Congressional District on Tuesday, outpacing the crowded field in a race that saw the giants of the artificial intelligence industry spend tens of millions of dollars trying to influence the outcome. 
Lasher’s victory over Assemblymember Alex Bores, Kennedy family scion Jack Schlossberg and a handful of other candidates puts him in a position to represent one of the nation’s most-sought-after districts, which includes all of Midtown Manhattan and the Upper East and Upper West sides. 
The Associated Press called the race for Lasher just after 10 p.m. 
Flanked by Gov. 
Kathy Hochul, Lasher told a crowd of supporters at Jacob’s Pickles that he was committed to showing “Democrats have bold new ideas to improve the lives of struggling Americans and then deliver on them.” 
The race drew more than $39 million in spending from outside interests, according to Federal Election Commission records. 
That includes $10 million from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who funded a super PAC supporting Lasher, his former aide. 
But the bulk of the outside spending  more than $20 million  came from PACs funded by AI executives, fueling a barrage of glossy mailers and advertisements aimed at propping up or tearing down Bores, who passed a regulatory bill in Albany last year that split the industry. 
With the win, Lasher sets himself up to succeed Rep. 
Jerry Nadler, a Democrat who has represented the Upper West Side in Congress for more than three decades. 
"I think he is the most knowledgeable on policy. 
I think he's very realistic and pragmatic. 
And I trust that he'll be the most effective of the choices," said Tara Innes, a resident of Stuy Town and Lasher campaign volunteer. 
Lasher was an aide to Nadler, who has been a longtime foe of President Donald Trump and served as the top-ranking Democrat on the powerful House Judiciary Committee. 
The 12th District primary was one of a handful of contested congressional primaries across New York City. 
Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who resides in the district at Gracie Mansion, declined to endorse any of the candidates or reveal whom he voted for. 
That was in contrast to three other House primaries, where he backed progressive candidates courting the left flank of the Democratic Party. 
Mamdani’s political bet paid off. 
As of Tuesday night, two of his endorsed candidates  Brad Lander and Claire Valdez  won. 
His third, Darializa Avila Chevalier, was in a tight race with Rep. 
Adriano Espaillat. 
Lasher will compete with Republican Caroline Shinkle, an attorney from Midtown, in the Nov. 3 general election. 
But Shinkle faces an uphill battle. 
The 12th District has more than six times as many Democrats as Republicans, according to the state Board of Elections. 
Shinkle’s campaign has about $74,000 on hand, according to the Federal Election Commission. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.4%Jon Campbell: 2.2%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias1.4%This article: 2.7%Jon Campbell: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 3.7%Jon Campbell: 1.9%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic3.7%This article: 4.1%Jon Campbell: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.1%This article: 1.0%Jon Campbell: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.9%Jon Campbell: 7.9%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect25.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 3.1%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Jon Campbell: 1.8%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias1.2%This article: 10.1%Jon Campbell: 7.2%Gothamist: 8.6%Negativity Bias10.1%This article: 4.9%Jon Campbell: 5.0%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias4.9%This article: 10.3%Jon Campbell: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error10.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Jon Campbell: 2.6%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Jon Campbell: 1.5%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 2.6%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.7%Jon Campbell: 2.8%Gothamist: 4.5%Appeal to Authority5.7%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 1.7%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.7%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.2%Jon Campbell: 3.0%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization6.2%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.2%Jon Campbell: 6.1%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion1.2%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.8%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.9%Jon Campbell: 1.5%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.1%Jon Campbell: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division4.1%This article: 8.2%Jon Campbell: 0.9%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal8.2%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.5%Jon Campbell: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.5%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.7%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.6%Jon Campbell: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.6%This article: 7.0%Jon Campbell: 4.2%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice7.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 4.5%Jon Campbell: 1.6%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.5%This article: 10.1%Jon Campbell: 0.8%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Jon Campbell: 0.2%Gothamist: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

487 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers29%attributed speech344writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 34 words • 100.0% coverageFederal Election Commission • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Bloomberg • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTara Innes • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coveragestate Board of Elections • 20 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Election Commission • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tara Innes

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words17% of attributed speech55% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Politically Right Leaning -14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%Tara Innes: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Tara Innes: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.9 ptsWriter: 0.9%Tara Innes: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.