The first NY-17 forum of the general election was … well … awkward.

If you’ve been paying attention to their campaign ads and social media rhetoric lately, you might have been surprised to see Republican Rep. Mike Lawler and Democratic challenger Cait Conley smiling and posing for a photo together Wednesday. But much like the interaction itself, there was a palpable feeling of awkwardness at the first forum of the 17th Congressional District general election cycle – arguably one of the nation’s most competitive House races this November. 

The Dutchess County Chamber of Commerce breakfast marked Lawler and Conley’s first joint public event since they became general election opponents. Conley, a U.S. Army veteran and graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, is trying to unseat the sitting member of Congress, who’s seeking a third term. But the incumbent and the combat veteran weren’t likely speaking to many potential voters. The forum, held at the DoubleTree Hilton in Poughkeepsie, is outside the district, which includes a part of southern Dutchess County (in addition to northern Westchester and all of Rockland and Putnam counties).

Lawler and Conley took turns answering the same questions for just under an hour, and discussed immigration, high energy costs, the conflict in the Middle East, data centers and more. They both carefully followed the rule not to directly address each other during the forum itself – though they may have slipped in a discreet dig or two. 

“There are real challenges – we all know that – but it's not enough to just scream and yell,” Lawler told the crowd at one point. “It’s not enough to say ‘I hate the president.’ You actually have to find a path forward. That is what I have consistently done, and that is what I will continue to do.” It was a subtle jab at Conley, as the Democratic primary was defined largely by the field trying – and failing – to avoid making the race about President Donald Trump.

“You can just ask people: Their lives have not gotten better over the last two years, they’ve gotten harder,” Conley said, addressing reporters after the forum. “And when you talk about rising costs, it's been across the board because of votes that Mike Lawler has taken.”

Wednesday’s forum was a cordial kickoff that showed that the most significant policy difference between Lawler and Conley is on immigration enforcement. Conley said she believes local police should focus on local crime rather than executing federal immigration tasks, and has called out U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents for past incidents of violence. She backs the main provisions of a new immigration law that limits police working with ICE. The state and federal government are embroiled in litigation over the policy, which takes effect next week. But Conley stops short when asked if she gives the law her full blessing. “I know (from) speaking with our local law enforcement that they can absolutely continue to coordinate with the federal government on criminal activities,” she said. 

Meanwhile, Lawler supports Trump's efforts to secure the border, and routinely blasts state leaders for spending billions of dollars in recent years for resources for migrants, like housing, food and healthcare and called the new policy limiting ICE “disastrous.” “We need an immigration policy that works,” he said Wednesday. “We need to secure the border, and we have effectively done that for 14 straight months.

But the two also share plenty of views that are similar. They both answered a lightning round of yes-or-no questions nearly the same way – including one question about tariffs.

Early in the forum, Conley said that tariffs have driven up costs and said Trump’s tactic of using them as a threat is “reckless,” – continuing arguments she championed against tariffs during the primary. But later in the forum, she said she supports tariff exemptions for small businesses when comparable products aren’t available in the U.S. That took Lawler by surprise. “After a whole year and a half of bashing tariffs, she said she supports them,” he told reporters later. “Frankly, that's fascinating.”

The real fiery discourse between the two candidates is expected at two televised debates scheduled for this fall. And those are unlikely to have the same level of decorum as at Wednesday’s event.