In the race for New York’s 17th congressional district, Republican incumbent Mike Lawler and Democratic challenger Cait Conley are both trying to pin the other to ties with the AI sector and the network of data centers that has become a hot-button issue in local politics.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) slate, which features candidates running for the House and is backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, is widely expected to prevail in November. But that looming victory does not erase the drama of this midterm cycle in New York. In a district stretching through the lower Hudson Valley, Conley—a combat veteran who once served on the Biden administration’s National Security Council—could upend Lawler in one of the election’s most pivotal battles.
The district’s complexion—often described as a purple battleground—remains fluid. It supported Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 vote while nonetheless reelecting Lawler for another term. Now, with support for former President Donald Trump dipping as the midterms approach, Lawler faces a tougher path to a third term. As of the latest assessments, The Cook Political Report labels the contest a toss-up, underscoring how competitive the race has become and its potential influence on which party controls the House.
If Conley wins, she would sit closer to a cohort sometimes described as the “Badass Women” bloc—security-state veterans with military background who advocate for a pragmatic, centrist approach rather than marching in step with the more hard-line wings of either party. Timmy Facciola of the Journal editorial landscape described Conley’s candidacy as testing the viability of a centrist strategy that rejects certain left-leaning positions, such as calls to abolish ICE or to halt arms shipments to Israel. Lawler, meanwhile, casts himself as a bridge-builder, portraying himself as among the most bipartisanship-minded lawmakers and signaling a willingness to diverge from Trump at times while still accepting some degree of the former president’s support.
Neither Lawler nor Conley fits neatly into the MAGA or DSA caricatures; both have leaned into a posture that critiques certain high-tech developments, signaling a broader discomfort with rapid tech growth that echoes the concerns of more radical populists like Lina Khan and Steve Bannon. The evolving conversation about technology policy has, in other words, penetrated mainstream politics, and both candidates are aligning themselves with a sentiment that there should be guardrails around the industry’s expansion.
That posture came into sharp relief during a televised debate on October 14, when both contenders argued they were best equipped to oversee AI regulation and to impose safeguards on a field many believe has outpaced existing rules.
Conley urged a skeptical view of Congress’s appetite to regulate AI, asserting that lawmakers are more concerned with appeasing wealthy backers—citing Elon Musk as a billionaire investor who has poured substantial sums into this year’s race. She noted that Musk had backed Lawler in the 2024 campaign, framing it as evidence that moneyed interests drive policy in this arena. Lawler countered by labeling Conley “the AI candidate for the AI industry,” a dig that captured the contest’s central theme: whether technocratic influence has become too influential in shaping policy.
When it comes to data centers, the two contenders also diverge on specifics, even as they share a general skepticism about unbridled growth. Conley supports New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s moratorium on new data centers, while Lawler advocates maintaining local zoning authority over such developments. Neither candidate casts themselves as a pure advocate for data centers, but their back-and-forth on the issue illustrates how controversial these facilities have become even in districts where they are financially significant.
Conley contended during the debate that Lawler’s district has seen multiple data centers rise in Rockland County—five in total, according to her account. Lawler pushed back, claiming he had no control over the decision to build the centers and noting that the facilities were constructed to serve the financial services sector. He also sought to frame Conley as overly enthusiastic about data-center expansion, launching an ad that challenged her insistence on expanding the sector. In the end, the exchange underscored that champions of large-scale data center development face a political liability in this district, where the term “data center” can carry negative connotations.
Beyond data centers, the candidates’ discussions about technology policy extended to online safety and privacy. After the debate, Reason magazine posed questions to both contenders about age-verification laws for social media and for AI tools. Such measures raise concerns about privacy erosion and censorship through age-gating the internet. Both Lawler and Conley offered familiar refrains: Lawler, who supported the controversial KIDS Act, and Conley, who has proposed stricter age-verification standards for AI tools, each argued that online safety regulations are needed to shield younger users.
Conley argued that “We have watched how social media is literally hurting the mental health of children,” insisting that the power and potential of AI necessitate regulatory oversight to protect the vulnerable. Lawler responded by emphasizing a balance: he values free expression, but he argued that protecting children must take precedence.
This bipartisanship on social media regulation has long been a topic simmering in Congress, yet the broader, mainstream debate about AI and the governance of data centers is comparatively new in this election cycle. It appears both Lawler and Conley have tuned their campaigns to the prevailing mood about artificial intelligence and related infrastructure, recognizing the sentiment that Americans are increasingly wary of tech’s reach and its consequences. As the race unfolds in a district where the political lines can shift quickly, the candidates’ explicit stance on AI and data centers is likely to influence voters’ judgments about who is best suited to oversee the evolving tech landscape in Congress.
