Antonio Delgado explains why he’s running for governor

Lt. Gov Antonio Delgado is continuing to chart a lefty path as he campaigns for governor against his boss, Gov. Kathy Hochul, in next year’s Democratic primary. So far, he’s aligned himself with progressive policy points like taxing the rich and the New York For All Act, which would prevent officials in the state from collaborating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Much of his campaign so far has focused on lambasting Hochul for the things that he feels she is doing wrong, even though he is still technically part of her administration.

He is also very clearly attempting to appeal to recent New York City Democratic mayoral primary winner Zohran Mamdani and the larger progressive movement in New York, whose respective popularity and organizing power could add great weight to his campaign. Right now, he’s darting around the state, appearing at campaign stops and rallies as New York Democrats figure out their next moves amid what can only be described as national partisan warfare. Delgado joined City & State earlier this month to chat about the gubernatorial race and his plans for New York. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How are you feeling about this race so far? 2026 is rapidly approaching.

I feel good about the fact that we're continuing to engage with people all across the state. I was able to be out in Rochester earlier this week and meet with some folks in small business, the Urban League and a barbershop meet-and-greet. What I appreciate is the appetite for change. What I appreciate is that people are hungry for a different approach. As somebody who's trying to bring that to bear, it's encouraging to know that everywhere I go, that is the energy that I feel. 

To your point about a new approach, with the CDPAP situation seemingly never ending, and now with the recent news about problems at the Office of Cannabis Management, does it concern you that this is just sort of how the government operates?

Yes, very much. So it speaks to the lack of proper planning and thoughtfulness and care, and it speaks to how, when you lead in that fashion, it impacts real lives. You know, (that’s true) whether you're somebody who's relying on home care as a matter of life and death, or you're providing care as a personal assistant, or whether you're a small business owner who's trying to make your way in the cannabis world and ultimately being undermined because of a failed approach to leadership and a failed approach to thoughtfulness. This is a dimension of the current mode of leadership that I think, to your point, is pervasive, and it's affecting communities all across the state. 

What we need is leadership that has the ability to be very decisive and clear and thoughtful and connected in a real way to the people, so that it is informed by the realities on the ground. I think when leaders are divorced from the realities, when leaders take a blasé attitude to the affairs of the people and make top-down decisions without proper investment, without proper attention, you are prone to these types of scenarios manifesting.

I think everyone's in agreement that affordability is just the issue right now, and housing is often people's largest bill every month. Do you think the solution is increasing supply, increasing regulations that protect tenants, or is it sort of a mixture of both?

There's definitely a supply-side issue, and it's also a demand-side issue, and let's just break that down. On the supply side, I think it's always worth engaging with the regulatory dimensions that can frustrate or slow down the way in which money flows through government for the purpose of building and constructing affordable homes, and that's something that we have to be realistic about from a bureaucratic standpoint, and what it means to get government out of the way of itself. But I think it's just as important, if not more in the short term, because those fixes take time. But what doesn't take time is making sure that the public, who is trying to survive every single day and meet their rent month to month, is in a position to do so. 

As I've said, seven out of 10 folks right now in New York are eligible for rental assistance at the federal level and aren't getting it, and knowing that, we have all these individuals across the state who could be provided real, meaningful assistance, but are not able to get it. I think it is deeply problematic. The governor only has a $50 million pilot program for this (Housing Access Voucher Program), and that's hardly enough. So to me, a statewide rental assistance program that meets people where they are, that directly invests dollars in people's pockets to provide economic security, is critically important. 

The idea that we're just going to give away these tax dollars and subsidies, with the hopes that folks in the private sector build affordable housing, and that's going to be the catch-all, the panacea – that is not the answer. It's not enough. The governor has accepted the fact that it is, and so we need a change in the mindset of how we ultimately fund housing and where the money moves. The money needs to move directly to the people, not just the renters, but the first-time home buyers. They need to have real, meaningful support. And right now, that balance is not where it needs to be. The balance is too much geared towards the interest of those who already have a lot versus those who actually need the support.

On the supply side, do you think there needs to be a reconsideration of some of the regulations and red tape around construction?

I think it's very important that we try our best to streamline the process and do so in a very constructive way. If we don't reassess the manner in which permitting happens and how we get to a place where construction is permitted, like these are all dimensions that any responsible leader should be thinking through when trying to figure out how to build in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible, because there is a demand-side piece, but there is certainly a supply-side piece as well to this.

People balked at Hochul’s proposed Housing Compact that would have overridden local zoning codes. Would you reconsider something like that? How would you reach out to local leaders about it?

I think what you're speaking to is the planning process, and the thoughtfulness that goes into the planning process, and the way you bring stakeholders to the table and make sure that your decision isn't totally reactive and a political response to a situation that takes a lot more thought. There has to be a substantive conversation where you pull in actors from across the state that have different points of views. I think the biggest lesson and what one should take away from the failed rollout of that housing plan, which the governor has now totally walked away from, is the manner in which it lacked any credible thoughtfulness to get diverse sets of stakeholders to the table before it was rolled out. It was, in essence, doomed from the beginning because of a lack of planning, a lack of forethought. 

Just like you see with CDPAP, just like you see with the cannabis rollout, there's a way in which, because of the lack of thoughtfulness ahead of meeting the objective, it ultimately undermines the goal. I think there's a pattern here that speaks to why change is needed.

We lead the nation in Medicaid spending while not being the largest state by size or population. What would be a reasonable and non-destructive way to bring that budget back down?

I think it always starts with the process before you even get to the substance. And when you're talking about people's lives and their health care, you better make sure that the manner in which you consider what, if anything, requires review (and) what, if anything, requires a reaccounting.  First, establish what that process is going to look like, who's going to be at the table, who's going to be involved in that conversation? Because you're talking about, legitimately, people's lives and death.

But do you agree that the budget’s size isn’t sustainable as it currently stands? 

What I agree is that everything should be accounted for, and every dollar should be leveraged to the fullest extent possible in terms of that value. So we have a responsibility as government leaders to be very deliberate in making sure that we are following the money and ensuring that that money is meeting the moment. So where there are opportunities, where that is not happening, we need to be holding that to account. That's why the process matters, because the process reveals where those moments are, where those scenarios are that require attention. So I believe that it is incumbent upon any leader to always be mindful of how money is being spent and ask the hard questions of whether or not there's waste or whether or not there could be room for improvement and more efficiency. 

On climate, it almost seems like the goals that were passed in that landmark climate deal are now being treated as mere suggestions. What do you think is the best way forward to protect the climate in New York? Do you support nuclear energy?

I think that we should not be walking away from our climate goals. I think the governor's posture on this is one where she appears to be okay with backsliding on this when, in fact, we should be leaning in the opposite direction. We made a commitment to meet this moment, not just in terms of the climate realities, the existential threat, but even on economic terms. We have a responsibility here to drive this process forward in a way that reduces the cost of energy in people's homes, and consistently doubling down on outdated modes of sourcing energy, consistently doubling down on a system where monopolies are able to jack up prices on consumers, on New Yorkers, and then take those dollars and use them to basically invest and repair outdated, outmoded means of sourcing energy, which we know is just going to add more to the cost and drive up the cost of those utility bills. 

The nuclear piece, in many respects, is a distraction. It's a distraction because there's no real, defined timeline associated with it, and we know that it's very, very cost-intensive at the end of the day. So what are we talking about in terms of real-time application, where from here on out, year to year, we need to drive down the costs?

Rep. Elise Stefanik is likely to be the Republican gubernatorial nominee. What do you think would be key to defeating her, should you win the Democratic nomination?

That's not my focus. My focus is on making sure that I present a clear contrast between myself and the governor and make sure that people understand that we have an opportunity right now to get beyond the status quo. We have an opportunity right now to move past politics as usual, to actually tackle the housing crisis, to actually tackle health care and child care, to actually make sure that we're spending public dollars in a way that is meant for the people and not for corporate power. That is the distinction here, and the more and more we are able to clarify that contrast in the coming months, whatever happens thereafter will take care of itself. Right now, the focus is on making sure the contrast between me and the governor is made abundantly clear.

Many progressive organizations and New Yorkers are really fed up with the governor. As far as coalition-building goes, have you gotten any commitments from groups who want to see new leadership in the executive mansion?

I will say that I've had a lot of conversations with a lot of organizations who appreciate that there's a current status quo is not aligned with where they want to go, and there's a lot of excitement around the possibility of the campaign that we're putting together here that could move the state in a direction that is more reflective of our shared objectives – those objectives being to uproot the entrenched economic and political power in New York that orients itself around corporate power at the expense of everyday people. This is the fight. How do we ensure that New Yorkers, all New Yorkers from all walks of life, are accounted for, not just a select few? I think that is where there's real alignment in this moment.

Have people like WFP Co-executive Director Jasmine Gripper said they think you could have similar success to Zohran Mamdani?

I think what the mayoral race demonstrates is a proof of concept that there's an appetite and a hunger to get beyond the same old politics – to not just get beyond it, but to get beyond it by focusing very diligently and with the conviction on a set of issues that oftentimes aren't really dealt with, because there's too much of a bias towards the interests of concentrated wealth and power. As long as that bias continues, then the rhetoric around affordability rings empty every single time. People run on affordability all the time, and unfortunately, they don't really connect in the same way. 

I think the reason why is because people are done with just the empty rhetoric around affordability. They want to know if you're willing to do the hard things that can make affordability happen, whether that's taxing the ultra-wealthy, whether that's taxing big corporations even if it’s going to upset some of your corporate donors, whether that means not taking corporate PAC money. Like, what are you willing to do to demonstrate that you are committed to the people? I don't take corporate PAC money. I am willing to raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy and big corporations. These are things that I'm prepared to do to make sure that we change the economic inequality that is suffocating the life out of our democracy.

In Buffalo, they just elected their own progressive democratic mayoral nominee. Does something like that make you think Hochul’s own stomping grounds may believe you could be a better path forward than she is?

I think there's an appetite for change from Buffalo to Brooklyn. You know that no matter where you go, people are hungry for change. You have to keep in mind the poverty levels. You know, from places like Buffalo to Syracuse to Rochester, all the way down to the city and places in between, they're staggering, and the economic pain continues to mount for people. Yet we are a state that is controlled by the Democrats. I think there's a thirst to figure out what it means to really be led by public servants who are serving the people and not necessarily the party machinery. I think as the people across the state wrestle with this, they are really, really hungry to figure out where there's an opportunity to make that kind of change. And I think that's why you're seeing some of these dimensions, or these examples, emerge across the state in ways that I think are very encouraging. 

A lot of people are making the point that this is where Democratic control of the state has gotten us. Are you arguing that you being in control was the missing piece?

The question is, who's in control of you, right? If the party is in control, but the party is being controlled by a set of interests that pull it away from the will of the people, that pull it in a way that only reinforces economic inequality, then, absent accountability within the party, what happens is that economic inequality only grows. So at some point, you need accountability. At some point, you need folks to take on that machinery, because otherwise it'll continue to reinforce itself. 

The challenge is that a lot of times, when you have states that are controlled in many respects by one party, then people begin to think about themselves in relation to each other within the party, and they think about their own futures as opposed to thinking about how their decisions affect the people. So their appetite for holding each other accountable may not be as high as it ought to be, because maybe they're thinking about things from a future-oriented standpoint and where they fit in some larger machine. I'm not thinking that way. I'm thinking about where the people are now and how I can leverage my power now for the betterment of the people.