The first New York City mayoral debate was, perhaps, more enjoyable for real estate agents in Florida than for New Yorkers. Many felt it just reinforced what had already been suspected. Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Republican Guardian Angels, appears to be the only candidate with a genuine understanding of the city’s needs, advocating for practical solutions in areas like policing, transportation, and vocational education. Still, it seems unlikely he’ll win. Maybe for the sake of the city he loves, he should consider stepping back.
If not, voters are left choosing between what’s bad and what’s worse—or as Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders described it, “normal and crazy.”
Debate Insights
Here are five observations from the debate.
1. The Argument Was Weak
The moderators dominated the conversation, cutting off candidates more often than allowing them to speak. It felt particularly like they were in cahoots with former Governor Andrew Cuomo, while Sliwa was often overlooked. Understandably, the focus turned to the front-runners, but that didn’t seem fair.
2. Zoran Mamdani’s Performance
State Rep. Zoran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who leads in polls, maintained a slick demeanor throughout. He navigated the debate with a charisma that was, well, almost too polished at times. However, he sidestepped critical questions, including his stance on Israel and Hamas, which he had previously made ambiguous comments about. At least he eventually stated that Hamas should disarm, but he hesitated before saying so.
Mamdani has faced backlash for his stance against the legalization of prostitution while simultaneously advocating for the decriminalization of sex trafficking. And when pressed on how he’d fund his promises to voters, his response about taxing the wealthy felt a bit hollow.
3. Cuomo’s Revitalized Energy
Andrew Cuomo, while no stranger to controversy, seemed more dynamic than during the primary debate. He had clearly prepared well, although he lacked the snappy lines Mamdani had mastered. Similar to Sliwa, he also took jabs at Mamdani, perhaps at the expense of sharing constructive plans for the city.
4. Sliwa’s Missed Opportunity
Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa, generally seen as a decent person, may be missing the point that Cuomo is the only viable opponent to Mamdani. Instead of focusing on Cuomo, Sliwa could have capitalized on Mamdani’s apparent inexperience. Having worked closely with law enforcement, Sliwa has credibility—but when sharing his vision for a megacity, he suggested hiring knowledgeable personnel, which is crucial in this challenging role. His slip-up of naming George Pataki as his favorite president, however, seemed misguided.
5. Hochul’s Dilemma
This morning, the biggest loser might just be Governor Kathy Hochul. None of the candidates raised their hands to show support for her, which felt quite awkward especially since she had recently backed Mamdani. It was an obvious misstep on both sides.
Voter Dilemma
New Yorkers now face a decision: choose the inexperienced Zoran Mamdani, who aims to take charge of a city with a vast budget and workforce, or opt for Andrew Cuomo, whose track record—flawed as it may be—offers some level of experience. Supporting Mamdani might lead to risks like heightened taxes and anti-business measures that could drive away residents and businesses. His recent rhetoric on Israel also raises concerns.
Repeating past mistakes won’t yield different results. New Yorkers have experienced the fallout from electing leaders like Bill de Blasio, who promised progressive change but left the city struggling with issues like crime and cleanliness. Mamdani’s proposals often echo that cycle.
There’s still a chance that Mamdani’s lead could shift with increased voter turnout, reminiscent of how Bill de Blasio secured his second term. But to help Cuomo’s chances, Sliwa might want to reconsider his position. The clock is ticking.
