Problem: Michael Goodwin’s column explaining his vote for Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral race.
It’s tough to pick between an arrogant ex-governor who has already wreaked havoc on our city and a seemingly frivolous party masquerading as something more serious (see: “Why Mr. Kuo is my choice,” Michael Goodwin, October 29).
As the saying goes, it’s often about choosing the lesser of two evils. Honestly, the idea of Cuomo winning doesn’t sit well with me, but the thought of Zoran Mamdani running our city feels even worse.
Peter Cooper
Bronxville
I think Michael Goodwin’s analysis is spot on. I get why he supports Andrew Cuomo for mayor.
Yet, sometimes it seems like facts don’t capture the whole picture. I still believe that Curtis Sliwa is by far the most genuine candidate who aspires to lead.
As Goodwin points out, choosing Zoran Mamdani as mayor wasn’t just a blunder—it’s a true tragedy. It’s also unfortunate how Curtis Sliwa was sidelined before the elections. I mean, you can’t really win them all, right?
Alan Hirsch
Port Washington
Zoran Mamdani, a neo-Marxist known for his support of the Intifada, looks like he could be our next mayor unless Andrew Cuomo pulls off an unbelievable comeback on November 4th.
Goodwin claims that Mamdani was “raised to hate America, its history, and its institutions.” On the other hand, Andrew Cuomo supports significant historical figures, including Christopher Columbus and Abraham Lincoln.
While Cuomo may not be everyone’s favorite, as Goodwin contends, he’s the only candidate with the insight and experience needed to navigate the city’s complex bureaucracy.
Admittedly, he doesn’t have the speechmaking flair of his father, but he’s well-acquainted with governance. Being both combative and competent, he embodies some of Machiavelli’s virtues.
Rosario A. Iaconis
Mineola
I get that the Post backs Mr. Cuomo, and I see the reasons behind it. But I have a different perspective.
I’m going to support Curtis Sliwa. Why? Because I just want someone who feels more like a regular New Yorker rather than a typical politician.
T. Bovet
Staten Island
Problem: Elizabeth Eddy is calling for the National Women’s Soccer League to conduct a “gender test.”
As a season ticket holder for the Angel City Football Club, I was taken aback by Elizabeth Eddy’s suggestion to test and possibly exclude women suspected of being transgender or intersex from the National Women’s Soccer League (“Own Goal” Postscript, October 26).
Instead of focusing on inclusion, she seems to be stirring up political controversy to keep transgender individuals out of the sport.
Rules based on baseless moral fears rather than scientific understanding overlook the diversity of women’s bodies. Mandating sex testing would require serious discussions with player representatives.
The players’ association should definitely push back against this. Such measures risk creating solutions to problems that aren’t really there.
Amanda Gord
Los Angeles, California
How do we ensure women’s rights while still being inclusive?
There should be straightforward rules regarding who can compete. For instance, just because your 10-year-old wants to join a toddler contest doesn’t mean they qualify. The same principle applies here: men shouldn’t compete against women, no matter their self-identification. Inclusion should mean meeting the established criteria.
Angela Lennox Kay
Hackettstown, New Jersey
Interested in sharing your insights on today’s story? Send your thoughts (with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Please note, letters may be edited for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
