Though the primary is over, Lauren Ashcraft, who challenged U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-East Side, Brooklyn, Queens), refuses to be silent about her experiences as a woman on the campaign trail.
Devin Gordon, a writer with The Atlantic, contacted her on Twitter on July 29 regarding an interview for an article about Maloney’s narrow reelection. According to Ashcraft, Gordon’s interview lacked journalistic professionalism.
“Shortly after we started speaking on the phone, I quickly learned that it was not an interview; it was an interrogation into my motives for running,” she recalled. “He seemed obsessed with his theory that I was a `stalking horse’ planted by Maloney to keep Suraj Patel from winning, and he seemed determined to prove it, however false.”
The call, which left Ashcraft “feeling cornered,” lasted about an hour. A few hours later, Gordon called again with some follow-up questions which were no less accusatory than the previous ones. The call lasted 37 minutes.
“Devin claimed to have a ton of evidence ‘on one side’ (begging the question, whose side?) and nothing but my word on the other side. He talked about ‘contradictions’ he was determined to make sense of,” said Ashcraft. “I told him to find the facts. He badgered me to admit that Brooklyn, where our campaign performed the strongest, is where Suraj needed votes to win. Proving…what? Did he think those votes belonged to Suraj? If Brooklyn was the key to unseating Maloney, did he ask Suraj if he considered this before jumping into the race six months after me?”
Perhaps the greatest red flag Gordon demonstrated in his interview was his question as to why Ashcraft chose to run against the most senior woman in the state’s congressional delegation.
“What is the implication here? That if any woman is elected, no other woman is required? Was he implying that only men can run against women?” Ashcraft asked rhetorically. “I can be a feminist, help to organize the Women’s March, and run for office against a woman. These are not mutually exclusive. My district wasn’t being represented in the way I saw fit. I sought to change that, and I will not apologize for that.”
Shortly after the interview, Ashcraft and her team contacted The Atlantic’s politics editor to confirm that Gordon was writing the story he told her he was, concerned about his unprofessional and conspiratorial tone. The editor confirmed that such a story was indeed underway and told her that their work is fact checked.
On Aug. 24, Gordon contacted Ashcraft again, but she refused to take an additional call from him. Regardless, Ashcraft has made it clear that she’s not interested in blocking the article’s publication.
“I’m not here to stop an article going out about how I lost or whatever,” she said. “But he called twice before taking almost two hours and wants to talk again, and none of these interactions has been professional, and they’re very biased.”
Gordon declined a request for comment.
.jpg)
![Lauren Ashcraft [photo provided by Lauren Tassone]](https://www.newyorkcountypolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Image-e1587657132354-1140x760.jpeg)
.jpg)


.jpg)

She’s kind of an asshole.
You’re kind of an asshole
It’s either incredibly disingenuous or demonstrates a complete lack of introspection to chalk up The Atlantic’s interest in Ashcraft as some “gotcha” hit piece. Her candidacy split the vote in a historically close race. If she had not run, Suraj Patel would have defeated Carolyn Maloney, changing the course of NYC political history. Period. Did Ashcraft want to defeat Maloney or raise her own profile? If her answer is the former, one has to ask why she ran at all.
I’m not psychic like you, Marta, but I don’t know that Ashcraft took votes from Patel…rather, I think she gave women voters a choice that was not Maloney. (I didn’t like Patel lat time, and I really disliked him this time.)
I’m not sure how exactly Suraj would have won “if she had not run” – his % of the vote went down during his 2nd run at Congess (normally your 2nd run is an improvement, if not a win such as Cori Bush), and he also spent a collective $3 million from 2018-2020 so I don’t buy that people didn’t get a chance to make up their minds. They clearly knew about Suraj after two runs, and whereas previously they voted for Maloney (hence her 20% drop in the polls) this time they supported Lauren or Pete. Suraj COULD have earned their vote, but the voters themselves found him lacking.
It seems like, if anything, Suraj has a ceiling of 40% and voters will pick Maloney, or Lauren, or even Peter before they want to vote for him.
The end result is the same – Ashcraft and Pete ran, splitting votes that would have likely gone to Patel and keeping Maloney in her seat. Your personal feelings about Patel notwithstanding, he got much, much closer than either of those candidates to *actually* unseating Maloney. Because more people voted for him than Ashcraft and Pete combined. Numbers don’t lie. She lost by a huge margin and it didn’t have anything to do with being a woman candidate and everything to do with being a weaker candidate that didn’t “earn” the votes necessary even come close. So, now we are stuck with Maloney and no one willing to examine their losing strategies or acknowledge a pretty basic truth – Ashcraft and Pete *split the vote*. Crying sexism when a reporter is interested in doing a piece about the election just doesn’t square. Is Ashcraft really so unwilling to do an honest post-mortem after losing an election that keeps an incumbent like Maloney in office? Take some responsibility for your part in the outcome.
Again. No, you have no proof that Lauren and Peter voters are “otherwise” Patel. They were, in fact, historically Maloney voters. And, again, Patel was unable to increase his % of the vote despite Maloney losing voters – pointing to a majority of voters being anti-Patel. Also, did not see a cry of sexism, but thanks for projecting your straw men (women?) onto the message board!
Ashcraft’s Atlantic Interview Displays Struggle of Women in Politics