Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

This Mayoral Debate Was Anything but Decisive

Opinion

This Mayoral Debate Was Anything but Decisive

Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani (R) speaks alongside Independent nominee former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa during a mayoral debate at Rockefeller Center on Oct. 16, 2025 in New York City. The candidates for New York City mayor faced off in their first debate ahead of the Nov. 4 election.


Getty Images

It’s a generous tip. It’s the stage name of a Tanzanian musician. It’s the increase in U.S. retail coffee prices in the last year.

It’s also the portion of New York City’s registered voters who turned out for the mayoral Democratic primary back in June.


That’s right — just more than a million New Yorkers voted in the primary in June, out of more than five million registered voters. There are about 8.5 million New Yorkers total, which means that only one-eighth participated in that election.

Of that one-eighth, 573,169 New Yorkers voted for democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani. In other words, he won just 1/16 of the total population of the city. The rest voted for someone else or stayed home.

It was obviously enough for Mamdani, a previously unknown state assemblyman, to catapult over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, incumbent Mayor Adams, Republican Curtis Sliwa, and several other lower-ranked candidates. Since then, he’s maintained a steady and commanding lead.

Thursday night’s debate, the first since that primary, could have been a decisive blow to Cuomo and Sliwa, the only two remaining candidates with enough voters and cash to make it on the stage. But it wasn’t — this race is anything but over.

Scores of national and local Democrats, as well as media figures, have touted Mamdani’s seeming inevitability, and probably saw in the debate another slam dunk. After all, he’s ahead of Cuomo, his nearest competitor, by double digits in the latest polls.

But it’s important to remember, the polls also had Cuomo handily winning the primary. Cuomo has also gained 10 points since Adams dropped out. And this debate was the first time many New Yorkers even tuned in to this election.

I’ve been covering the mayor’s race since the primary, and Mamdani’s unexpected rise has been much of the focus, as has his comfortable lead over his opponents. It’s been a race of big personalities and egos, themes of scandals and corruption, issues of affordability and crime. And it’s not just a local election — this race has been nationalized by Democrats as well as Republicans all the way up to President Trump, who’s been lobbing threats against Mamdani on an almost daily basis.

So presumably, lots of people all over the country tuned into the debate, where Cuomo and Mamdani sparred on everything from Israel to sexual harassment, rent freezes to free buses. And where Sliwa got his attacks in on both candidates — the architect and the apprentice, as he repeatedly referred to Cuomo and Mamdani, respectively.

All three candidates landed some good zingers. Cuomo accused Mamdani of inexperience, quite fairly, saying his only job has been interning for his mother. Mamdani turned the experience issue back on Cuomo, saying, “If we have a health pandemic, then why would New Yorkers turn back to the governor who sent seniors to their deaths in nursing homes? That’s the kind of experience that’s on offer here today.”

And Sliwa painted both candidates as out-of-touch politicians who don’t know New York as well as he does.

But no candidate was vanquished. Mamdani showed some weakness on issues of policing and Israel, admitting he was learning — seemingly for the first time — about historic attacks on Jews and the job cops have to do in a city as big as New York. Cuomo’s history of scandals was front-and-center, reminding New Yorkers that he was far from a perfect leader, and doesn’t seem to feel any remorse for his very public failings. And Sliwa, running in third place, at times seemed like an afterthought, even chiding the moderators for ignoring him.

If we’re being generous, Mamdani may have done no harm in his debate performance, but he’s no shoo-in either.

For one, New York City is liberal, yes. But it’s not Portland-liberal. If voters were tuning in for the first time, they heard about socialism, free handouts, no real plan to pay for giant subsidies, social workers where cops should be, and decriminalizing a number of societal ills. We already know the financial, real estate, and business sectors are wary of Mamdani’s socialism — plenty of voters are too.

For another, New York Jews are a huge voting population, and Cuomo did a good job of reminding them that Mamdani has at times refused to denounce Hamas.

Both Cuomo and Sliwa also did a good job of laying out the stakes of electing someone to run the biggest city in the country who hasn’t run, well, anything…calling out Mamdani’s proposals as naïve fantasies.

There are a bit more than two weeks left until New Yorkers decide their fate. In politics, that’s both a blink of an eye and a lifetime. Anything can happen — and knowing New York, it probably will.


S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.

This Mayoral Debate Was Anything but Decisive was originally published by the Tribune Content Agency and is republished with permission.


Read More

Gillespie County Republicans Scale Back Hand Count Amid Staffing Shortage

Election workers hand count ballots inside of The Edge in Fredericksburg on Mar. 5, 2024. Early voting ballots for the Republican primaries were counted here on Election Day.

Maria Crane / The Texas Tribune

Gillespie County Republicans Scale Back Hand Count Amid Staffing Shortage

Gillespie County Republicans have scrapped plans to hand count all of their 2026 primary ballots after failing to recruit enough workers — at least for early voting. The lack of manpower prompted party officials to vote last week to use the county’s voting equipment to tabulate thousands of ballots expected to be cast during the two weeks before Election Day on March 3.

However, Gillespie Republicans still plan to hand count ballots cast on Election Day, party officials told Votebeat.

Keep ReadingShow less
American flag

Analysis of concentrated power in the U.S. political economy, examining inequality, institutional trust, executive authority, and the need for equal access and competitive markets.

Chalermpon Poungpeth/EyeEm/Getty Images

America: What We Want, What We Have, What We Need

Equal Access in an Age of Concentrated Power

The American constitutional system was designed to restrain power, not to pursue a single national mission. Authority was divided across branches, diffused among states, and slowed by deliberate friction. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, ambition was meant to counteract ambition. The design assumed competing interests would prevent domination.

For more than two centuries, that architecture has endured. The United States remains the world’s largest economy by nominal GDP, according to the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, with deep capital markets and a formidable innovation system.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Disconsent of the Governed

The U.S. Capitol is shown on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The Disconsent of the Governed

President Trump’s administration and Congress have not paid much attention to what legislators call “the normal order” in matters related to codifying laws and implementing programs and policies that are supposed to help mind the public’s business or satisfy petitioners looking for attention and relief. This has been partly by design and partly not.

A serious consequence of our leaders not following “normal order” has been to encourage many of us who aren’t in government to use more polarizing rhetoric and to act out more than usual. While there may be little we would consider “normal” about how our national government has been working recently or how people have risen to support or challenge it, we would be mistaken and doing ourselves a great disservice if we were to dismiss or condemn the agitated steps everyday Americans are taking as unhinged or “the work of domestic terrorists.” Their words and actions may be on the other side of normal, but there’s nothing crazy about them.

Keep ReadingShow less
A tragedy in Mali, West Africa is a reminder of solidarity across difference and the work needed at home in the United States

Map highlighting Mali over Mali flag

AI-generated image

A tragedy in Mali, West Africa is a reminder of solidarity across difference and the work needed at home in the United States

This fall, I got a phone call from a longtime friend in Mali, West Africa. I could hear the familiar hum of insects in the background, even as I heard the audible strain in his voice. A tragedy had just unfolded - innocent people were being displaced, villages destroyed, and people killed in the name of religion and political extremism. Even though it has been over two decades since I last visited, Mali is a place I grew to know and love - and for over 25 years, I’ve been blessed with a close friendship with my host family, with whom I lived during my time in the U.S. Peace Corps. I had been one of just over 2,500 volunteers who had served in the country until security concerns forced the closure of Mali’s Peace Corps program in 2015. And now, the village where I lived had been burned down, and my friends and host family were refugees on the run.

It was a reminder about how quickly things can change. One day, you wake up to the familiar path of sunlight across mud brick walls and the large baobab trees that frame the dirt path leading from the main road. Another day, you wake up to a worst nightmare - a country in chaos, extremism on the loose, and the very real force of violence right at your doorstep. It was also a reminder that political unrest can strike close to home, to the places and people I know and love, and that political instability and violent, polarizing rhetoric takes its toll.

Keep ReadingShow less