A new poll commissioned by a left-wing advocacy group is raising hopes among progressive activists eager to enlist a challenger to take on Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), a pro-Israel Democrat whose House district leans heavily to the left, in next year’s June primary election.

The poll, released this week by Demand Progress Action, shows Brad Lander, the New York City comptroller, leading by 19 points in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup with Goldman, who wins just 33% of the vote. Lander, who served as a longtime city councilman in the district, claims 52% among likely Democratic primary voters, while also boasting a higher favorability rating, according to the poll.

While the survey was meant to coax Lander into entering the primary, it remains unclear if he has the appetite to compete in what would likely be a bitter race for the seat covering Lower Manhattan and a swath of Brooklyn, including such progressive enclaves as Park Slope.

Lander, a well-known progressive who has not explicitly ruled out a congressional bid after losing in the New York City mayoral primary, is more widely expected to accept a senior role in a potential administration of Zohran Mamdani, the far-left Democratic nominee for mayor whose upset in June lent renewed energy to progressive activists who have eyed challenges to several mainstream House Democrats in New York City.

Still, Lander had been looking at Goldman’s seat since before the primary concluded, according to a political consultant familiar with the situation, who suggested the city comptroller could be “serious” about a campaign.

Lander’s team, several members of which have joined Mamdani’s campaign, has also reportedly clashed with the nominee’s aides, fueling speculation about his prospects for securing a position in a potential future administration. A person familiar with some of the internal tensions said broadly that they stem in part from a lingering Brooklyn political dispute involving Lander and grudgingly recalled by some close aides to Mamdani.

“I think that Lander can beat Goldman, but I thought that even before the poll came out,” said a political consultant who worked to elect Goldman during his first primary in 2022, when the former Trump impeachment prosecutor beat a crowded field of progressives to clinch the nomination with a plurality of the vote.

A spokesperson for Lander did not respond to a request for comment from Jewish Insider on his plans for a challenge. His team has otherwise said that “there is no drama between Brad and Zohran or their ‘camps.’”

If Lander chooses to run for the seat held by Goldman, a two-term Jewish Democrat whose strong support for Israel and refusal to endorse Mamdani have sparked backlash among left-wing voters, he would be a formidable candidate, experts say, citing his widespread popularity in a district he has long called home.

“I think that Lander can beat Goldman, but I thought that even before the poll came out,” said a political consultant who worked to elect Goldman during his first primary in 2022, when the former Trump impeachment prosecutor beat a crowded field of progressives to clinch the nomination with a plurality of the vote.

The potential matchup would also set up a unique primary between two Jewish Democrats who both identify as Zionists but have differing approaches to what that label means, particularly in the aftermath of Hamas Oct. 7, 2023, attacks and the ensuing war in Gaza.

Goldman, for his part, has continued to back U.S. military aid to Israel, even as he recently said the “crisis in Gaza shocks the conscience” and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “personal and political interests are guiding Israel’s actions, rather than what is best for” the Jewish state.

The 49-year-old lawmaker has also withheld an endorsement of Mamdani until he takes “concrete steps” to address concerns raised by Jewish voters over his anti-Israel rhetoric, including his refusal to explicitly condemn calls to “globalize the intifada,” a phrase many Jews view as antisemitic. Mamdani has said he does not use the slogan and that he will discourage its usage.

Goldman’s largely left-leaning House seat “is probably one of the biggest changes in terms of pro-Israel to not pro-Israel districts in the city,” said Chris Coffey, a veteran Democratic strategist who lives in the district and helped advise former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s mayoral bid during the primary.

Lander, who has long identified as a progressive Zionist, is a vocal critic of Israel’s war in Gaza and has called for pulling aid to Israel. The 56-year-old comptroller has faced criticism from the organized Jewish community for divesting from Israel bonds while in office, though he has said the decision was not political. Lander was a key Jewish validator for Mamdani in the primary, cross-endorsing with the 33-year-old democratic socialist and assemblyman from Queens. Mamdani won Goldman’s district in June.

Speaking at a Jews for Racial and Economic Justice event earlier this week, Lander said he had not done enough “to speak out against Israel’s war crimes, against ethnic cleansing, against forced starvation of Palestinians.”

Chris Coffey, a veteran Democratic strategist who lives in the district and helped advise former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s mayoral bid during the primary, said that Goldman is not likely to find himself in a vulnerable position unless Lander chooses to run, an outcome he does not anticipate with Mamdani well poised to win the general election.

Still, Goldman is now in a “precarious place,” Coffey told JI, “where he’s a pro-Israel Democrat in a time when it’s been harder to be a pro-Israel Democrat.”

Goldman’s largely left-leaning House seat “is probably one of the biggest changes in terms of pro-Israel to not pro-Israel districts in the city,” he added, noting the shift had occurred in recent years amid growing Democratic divisions over Israel and Gaza.

Some observers recently speculated that Goldman could switch districts and run for retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler’s (D-NY) seat further north in Manhattan, where he would likely face a more friendly electorate. But his team has dismissed that idea as unfounded and said Goldman had no plans to run for another seat.   

“Dan Goldman isn’t a moderate, he’s definitely left of center,” said the political consultant close to Goldman, who is now working on a super PAC to oppose Mamdani. “Brad may win because of his name ID and reputation but any other opponent would likely lose.”

The poll released on Wednesday underscored that view, showing that Goldman would win with 41% of the vote against an unnamed Democratic candidate. His lead evaporated after the poll had, among other things, linked him to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, which had quietly funded a local super PAC three years ago to help boost his first primary bid.

AIPAC, whose political arm endorsed Goldman in February, did not return a request for comment on a potential primary.

“Dan is laser-focused on rooting out government corruption, defending our democracy from Donald Trump and leveling the playing field for all New Yorkers.” Simone Kanter, a senior advisor to Goldman, told JI. “Anyone who would like to throw their hat in the ring is more than welcome to.”

David Greenfield, a former city councilman who leads the Jewish anti-poverty group Met Council, said the results of the poll were unsurprising, even as he dismissed the survey for posing a “misleading” question. “Everyone knows Brad is not running for Congress,” he told JI, “because he’s slated to join a Zohran Mamdani administration.”

It was unclear if the poll had surveyed respondents about other potential candidates. Demand Progress Action did not return requests for comment, nor did Data for Progress, a progressive firm that conducted the poll.

Simone Kanter, a senior advisor to Goldman, told JI the congressman’s team is “not paying any attention to agenda-driven push polls.”

“Dan is laser-focused on rooting out government corruption, defending our democracy from Donald Trump and leveling the playing field for all New Yorkers.” Kanter said on Thursday. “Anyone who would like to throw their hat in the ring is more than welcome to.”

While a competitive primary would likely attract spending from outside groups, Goldman, an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune whose estimated net worth is up to $250 million, could also self-fund his bid as he did in 2022 — when he prevailed with 26% of the vote in a crowded field of well-known politicians. 

Yuh-Line Niou, a former state assemblywoman who came in second in 2022 with 24%, has said privately she plans to run again and has been making calls to feel out support, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Niou, an outspoken progressive who faced backlash in the last race for backing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, declined to comment on the record when reached this week by JI. 

Goldman is also likely to face a repeat challenger from his 2024 primary, Evan Hutchison, who won 24% of the vote last cycle and has recently sent out fundraising texts saying that the incumbent “won’t condemn Israel’s genocide in Gaza.” But strategists said they do not see his campaign as a serious threat to Goldman, who claimed 66% in his last primary.

Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, told lawmakers on Friday that existing federal law and procedures make it unlikely that any schools will lose their federal funding over antisemitic activity on their college campuses in the near term.

Some lawmakers have honed in on threats to colleges and universities’ federal funding as a method of pressuring or penalizing them over their failure to protect Jewish students. But Lhamon explained at a roundtable with congressional Democrats that pulling funding requires a yearslong litigation process under current federal statute.

Before seeking to revoke funding, Lhamon said that her department, the Office of Civil Rights, must first investigate and communicate a finding that the subject of an investigation has violated civil rights law, at which point she’s required to give schools the opportunity to voluntarily come into compliance.

If a school refuses, then the DOJ can take the matter to an administrative law judge. If the judge rules that the school is in violation, the subject can still appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Only at the end of that process — which Lhamon acknowledged could take years — can funds actually be revoked, Lhamon said.

But, she added, most schools will agree to voluntarily take action — OCR is currently taking a discrimination case, related to disability issues, to a judge for the first time in 27 years.

Lhamon also acknowledged another gap in her office’s enforcement ability — she does not have the authority to require schools to dismiss problematic faculty.

Addressing the antisemitism that has pervaded campuses across the country over the past 11 months, Lhamon described herself as “shocked” by the comments she hears from school leaders professing to be unaware of their responsibilities to protect Jewish students from discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, a situation she described as unacceptable.

“We are seeing kids assaulted. We are seeing kids stopped from going to class,” Lhamon said. “These are not close calls about whether a university should be responding to them, and yet our universities are treating them like there’s maybe something they don’t need to do, or there’s a byzantine process that a student needs to follow before they can get a university response. That’s not the law.”

Lhamon’s presentation to the lawmakers focused heavily on her office’s need for additional funding; she said that Congress “has never” provided sufficient funding.

The lawmakers who attended the event, Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Kathy Manning (D-NC), Grace Meng (D-NY), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Wiley Nickel (D-NC) and Kim Schrier (D-WA), are supporting a Goldman-sponsored bill that pushes for increased funding for OCR.

Lhamon said her office has around 400 investigative staff, the same number it has since the Bush administration. Complaints, especially in the wake of Oct. 7, have surged, however, from 6,000 per year to 19,201 in 2023, a record it is set to easily surpass this year, with around 24,000 so far.

Four hundred of those complaints were related to discrimination based on shared ancestry or national origin, some of those being antisemitism complaints. OCR currently has 162 such cases under investigation and many more go unreported, Lhamon said.

“I cannot manage that complaint volume with the staff that I have,” Lhamon emphasized, warning that talented and experienced investigators could leave the office. “Our staff are now carrying about 51 cases per person, and you cannot do civil rights work effectively with a caseload that is that high.”

Lhamon said that staff shortages are causing cases to drag on, leaving students to wait, in some cases until after they’ve graduated, for their cases to be resolved.

“That’s not protecting civil rights in the way Congress intended,” Lhamon said.

Lhamon said that the administration’s requested budget increase would allow the office to add 77 new investigators. She said that the ideal target would be 20 or fewer active cases per investigator. But it appears unlikely that Congress will fulfill the administration’s request.

“We don’t have any more efficiencies we can bring to this problem,” Lhamon added. Some lawmakers have argued the case backlog is an issue of improper procedures or prioritization at OCR.

She explained that there is a low bar to opening a formal investigation, which includes extensive document requests and interviews and often surfaces additional instances of examples of discrimination.

Even once cases are resolved, OCR staff are responsible for continued monitoring of schools that have settled with the office. For instance, schools entering into agreements relating to antisemitism are now being required to report every complaint of antisemitism they receive to OCR, so that federal officials can monitor how the schools respond.

Pressed by lawmakers on why her office does not provide specific detail about the nature of the shared ancestry cases it is investigating — such as how many relate to antisemitism — Lhamon said that most antisemitism cases ultimately grow to involve other areas of discrimination as well.

“Here’s maybe an ugly answer to that, but if a university is not handling antisemitism, it’s also not handling anti-Islam,” Lhamon said. “What we’re finding is, if a school doesn’t know or isn’t fulfilling its obligations under Title VI, it’s not doing it for people in general.”

Lhamon also lamented what she characterized as a failure on behalf of schools to take steps to inform students of the rights and protections they are entitled to and how to report cases of discrimination.

She offered, as an example, that she frequently sees information sheets inside bathrooms on campuses about how students can report sexual harassment and sex discrimination, but not similar information sheets about other forms of discrimination.

Lhamon suggested Congress could consider legal changes to address such gaps.

Seventy-four House lawmakers  wrote to the boards of Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania on Friday demanding that they immediately fire their presidents in response to widely criticized congressional testimony they delivered on antisemitism on their campuses earlier this week.

The presidents of the three schools have come under increasing scrutiny this week amid growing speculation that their jobs could be on the line following their refusal to say earlier this week that calls for Jewish genocide would violate their schools’ codes of conduct.

“Testimony provided by presidents of your institutions showed a complete absence of moral clarity and illuminated the problematic double standards and dehumanization of the Jewish communities that your university presidents enabled,” the letter reads. “Given this moment of crisis, we demand that your boards immediately remove each of these presidents from their positions and that you provide an actionable plan” to ensure the safety of the Jewish community on campus.

“Anything less,” than the steps they requested, the lawmakers continued, “will be seen as your endorsement… and an act of complicity in their antisemitic posture.”

The letter was led by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who questioned the presidents on the genocide issue, and Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL). Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) is the only other Democrat who signed the letter; the rest are Republicans.

The lawmakers said that the testimony makes it “hard to imagine” any Jewish or Israeli person feeling safe on their campuses when the presidents “could not say that calls for the genocide of Jews would have clear consequences on your campus.”

It adds that subsequent social media statements seeking to clarify or walk back those comments “offered little clarification on your campus’ true commitment to protecting vulnerable students in this moment of crisis,” describing them instead as “desperate attempts to try and save their jobs” and “too little too late.”

Shortly before the Stefanik-Moskowitz letter was released, a group of thirteen House Democrats wrote to the boards of the three schools urging them to re-examine their codes of conduct to make clear that calls for the genocide of Jews are not acceptable.

This second letter, led by Reps. Kathy Manning (D-NC), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) and Susan Wild (D-PA), includes similar language to the bipartisan letter regarding the presidents’ testimony and how it would make Jewish campus members feel unsafe, but stops short of directly calling for the presidents to be fired.

The lawmakers wrote that they felt “compelled to ask” if the presidents’ responses “align with the values and policies of your respective institutions.”

“The presidents’ unwillingness to answer questions clearly or fully acknowledge appalling and unacceptable behavior — behavior that would not have been tolerated against other groups — illuminated the problematic double standards and dehumanization of the Jewish communities at your universities,” the letter continues. “The lack of moral clarity these presidents displayed is simply unacceptable.”

The lawmakers requested that the schools update their policies to “ensure that they protect students from hate” and describe their plans for protecting Jewish and Israeli community members.

“There is no context in which calls for the genocide of Jews is acceptable rhetoric,” the letter reads. “While Harvard and Penn subsequently issued clarifying statements which were appreciated, their failure to unequivocally condemn calls for the systematic murder of Jews during the public hearing is deeply alarming and stands in stark contrast to the principles we expect leaders of top academic institutions to uphold.”

The letter notes that federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination against Jews on campus, and that criminal law bans hate crimes, violence and incitement to violence.

“Students and faculty who threaten, harass, or incite violence towards Jews must be held accountable for their actions,” the lawmakers wrote. “If calls for genocide of the Jewish people are not in violation of your universities’ policies, then it is time for you to reexamine your policies and codes of conduct.”

Signatories to the Democratic letter include Manning, Wild, Auchincloss, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Grace Meng (D-NY), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).

All of the signatories to the Democratic letter are either Jewish or deeply involved with Jewish community issues on the Hill. 

Earlier this week, a third letter by six House Republicans from Pennsylvania — Reps. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), alongside Congressmen John Joyce, M.D. (R-PA), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Dan Meuser (R-PA) — called for University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill specifically to be fired.