Nadler and Maloney were colleagues in the debate. Their opponents are antagonistic.

After decades of working together as House colleagues and eventually rising to powerful committee leadership positions, Representatives Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney took to the stage on Tuesday night as villains. reluctant hostilities in the Democratic trilateral debate.

If fireworks were to be expected, the argument was a futile one: Two longtime Democrats stood and sat side by side, each agreeing to allow the other to recount decades of accomplishments. century and exhibit a degree of unusualness.

It fell into the hands of a third candidate, Suraj Patel, a lawyer who had never held an elected office who played the ardent belligerent, criticizing the records of New York political authorities and suggesting that voters would be better served by a younger representative, and perhaps the House of Representatives. so is the term limit.

The debate, hosted by the NY1 and WNYC, offered the widest opportunity for the top three Democratic candidates seeking to represent the newly drawn 12th Constituency to distinguish the primary. before the August 23 primaries. (A fourth candidate, Ashmi Sheth, would appear on the ballot but did not meet the fundraising requirements to appear on stage.)

In a debate with a few standout moments, the most notable exchange did not involve the main contest itself.

Errol Louis, one of the moderators, asked three candidates if they believed President Biden should run for re-election in 2024.

Mr. Patel, who is debating the importance of generational change, was the only candidate to answer affirmatively. Mr. Nadler and Ms. Maloney, who are arguing that seniority brings influence and expertise, both dodged the question.

“It’s too early to tell,” Mr. Nadler said.

“I don’t believe he will run for re-election,” Ms Maloney said.

It appeared to be a rare disruption to Democratic unity for Nadler, 75, and Maloney, 76, who were elected to office in 1992 and often work together. as they climbed the ranks of Congress.

Midway through the 90-minute debate, Mr. Nadler was asked to explain the difference between him and Ms. Maloney. “Carolyn and I have worked together on a lot of things,” he said, stumbling slightly. “We worked together on a lot of different things.”

“There are some differences,” he added, stumbling a bit more before going on to name three specific votes.

But even if the two are essentially cases for their political survival, Mr Nadler and Ms Maloney have largely refrained from attacking each other or offering good reasons for voters to choose one of them. than the other. When given the opportunity to cross-examine their opponents, both chose to question Mr. Patel.

Ms Maloney even admitted she “didn’t want to race” against Mr Nadler, her “good friend” and ally.

Mr Nadler pointed to three key votes that set him apart from Ms Maloney – his opposition to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, which expanded government surveillance following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. , while she voted for them; he supported the Iran nuclear deal, which she opposed. But he refrained from outright criticizing her votes. Mr. Patel was more forceful, at one point calling Ms Maloney’s vote on Iraq “the single biggest problem with her voting record”.

Mr. Patel, 38, who twice tried unsuccessfully to defeat Ms Maloney, sometimes tries to use their friendliness to his advantage. At one point, Mr Patel questioned why Mr Nadler had previously endorsed Ms Maloney even though she had previously supported legislation that would have Commission that the government studies the discredited link between vaccines and autism.

“In the contest between you and her, I think she is the better candidate,” Mr. Nadler said.

“What now?” Mr. Patel returned fire.

“I still think so,” replied Mr. Nadler.

With three weeks until the main competition and no clear leader, Mr. Patel has managed to create a stark contrast to his two rivals. He singled out their corporate sponsors and their adherence to party fundamentalism and attempted to liken himself to younger, rising party stars like Representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Alexandria Ocasio – Cortez.

“It’s 2022,” he said in his opening statement. “It’s time to turn the pages of 1992.”

Mr Patel’s performance appeared to be energetic, in stark contrast to Mr Nadler, whose opening remarks paused in which he misrepresented and said he had “impeached Bush twice” when he wanted to. referring to former President Donald J. Trump.

“I think Suraj performed well,” said Chris Coffey, a Democratic strategist who was not involved in the race. “I think Carolyn did well. And I thought that Nadler had a rough time.”

It was only towards the end of Tuesday’s debate that Ms. Maloney appeared to have her eye on Mr. Nadler. In an infrastructure conversation, she argued that he got the wrong credit for helping fund the Second Avenue subway, a long-awaited project in her district.

Ms. Maloney says she has gone ahead with the project, while Mr. Nadler has yet to secure money for a proposed freight tunnel that would run beneath New York Harbor, a project he has championed for years. .

“It hasn’t been built yet,” Ms. Maloney pointed out.

The exchange ended decades of political harmony based on the dividing line between the two districts of elected officials: Ms. Maloney represented most of the East Side of Manhattan, while Mr. Nadler served voters in the West. During their time in office, their reach has grown to include neighborhoods in areas of Brooklyn and Queens, following changes made to the state’s redistricting process. Both have endorsed each other’s previous re-election bids, supporting New York City’s quest to become political icons.

But the alliance fell apart in May, when a state court was tasked with reviewing the congressional map of New York approve a redistricting plan that throw two powerful allies into the same districtan area that combines the East and West Sides of Manhattan above 14th Street into a single borough for the first time since World War II.

Mr Nadler and Ms Maloney ultimately chose against each other rather than seek a side seat – a decision that ensured that at least one of them would lose their positions, robbing at least one senior member of the delegation. New York congress. with political influence.

Maloney leads the House Oversight and Reform Committee, a key investigative committee. Mr. Nadler chairs the Judiciary Committee, a role put him in the spotlight of the nation in both Trump impeachment trials.

For months, the two were engaged in a war for their political survival that made up the Democratic party. Both Mr Nadler and Ms Maloney relied on political connections to try to pressure former allies and wealthy donors they once shared backing one of them.

All three candidates in Tuesday’s debate and political analysts conceded that the outcome of the race could largely depend on who votes. Even as they tried to appeal to voters, Ms Maloney, Mr Nadler and Mr Patel admitted they largely shared political views on key issues like abortion and gun control.

“On this stage, we are lovers who transcend the stars,” said Mr. Patel. “We’re arguing right now, but the fact of the matter is, we’re on the same team.”

Nicholas Fandos contribution report.