As President Donald Trump’s threats against Democratic city leaders continue across the country, Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani looms large as New York City’s best defense against a hostile federal government. Mamdani’s success in the June Democratic mayoral primary has given people in New York City and beyond a brighter and more hopeful vision of progress.
In the wake of Mamdani’s stunning primary victory, institutions and politicians, both conservative and progressive, have turned their attention towards New York City, as former Governor Andrew Cuomo, incumbent Mayor Eric Adams and the conservative public figure Curtis Sliwa vie for sole possession of the anti-Zohran voting bloc. As the race stands — with Mamdani on the Democratic ticket, Cuomo and Adams on their own independent platforms and Sliwa as the Republican nominee — the odds favor Mamdani with recent polls showing a +19 margin.
However, in recent days, Trump has privately discussed intervening in the race by offering Mayor Adams a government job in his administration — reportedly the Saudi Arabian ambassadorship — in return for Adams dropping out of the race. Such a deal could substantially alter the outlook of the election. “I would like to see two people drop out and have it be a one on one,” Trump commented, also adding that he wouldn’t want to see the city led by “a communist,” referring to the democratic-socialist Mamdani. Adams has since come out and stated that he will be staying in the race.
Meaningless diversions aside, Mamdani has been remarkable on the campaign trail. His campaign has solidified around concise and consistent messaging, making Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) policy points digestible and relatable. Promises to broaden the municipal safety net, expand the housing supply and focus on the affordability crisis vaulted Mamdani over Cuomo in June. His campaign has been buoyed throughout by his charismatic appeal and the institutional backing of NYC-DSA, allowing for a canvassing operation consisting of 50,000 volunteers.
Cuomo, after his major upset in the Democratic primary, reentered the race as an independent candidate, evidently under the impression that he still had the best chance of defeating Mamdani, revealing both the height of his self-assuredness and a low opinion of his compatriots, Adams and Sliwa. His “Building a New NYC” platform relies heavily on an image of New York City as downtrodden and vulnerable. It is difficult to see Cuomo in that role, the no-nonsense, clean-up-the-streets city patriarch, especially because of the many blemishes on his record, the best summary of which comes from Mamdani himself. In response to Cuomo calling into question his experience, Mamdani responded, “To Mr. Cuomo, I have never had to resign in disgrace. I have never cut Medicaid. I have never stolen … from the M.T.A. I have never hounded the 13 women who credibly accused me of sexual assault … and I have never done these things because I am not you, Mr. Cuomo.” Despite Cuomo’s questionable record, many high-profile Democratic politicians have either refused to endorse Mamdani or rallied behind Cuomo.
The two thorns in Cuomo’s side, Adams and Sliwa, are perfectly placed to ruin Cuomo’s chances by splitting the vote. However, the exact difference made by their continued presence in the race is unclear. In situations where Cuomo is isolated against Mamdani, as Trump sought to accomplish with his job offer to Adams, the most recent polls from Zenith Research and VeraSight still show a double-digit lead for Mamdani. Also, when it comes to campaign war-chests, Mamdani has already reached the fundraising cap of $8 million, behind him are Sliwa with around $4 million, then Adams with around $3.5 million and Cuomo in last with $1.5 million.
However, this form of fundraising is much more regulated and does not exactly correspond to the real capital behind these campaigns. Independent expenditures allow for businesses and PACs to spend on behalf of the campaign. During the primary, a Cuomo-affiliated super-PAC, Fix the City, raised around $25 million. This contrast reveals something important about the two campaigns. Cuomo’s campaign is an impersonal manifestation of large-scale institutional resistance to change, whereas Mamdani’s campaign builds itself around the New York City community and community organizations like the NYC-DSA.
What all the outrage and blathering about the danger of Mamdani reveals is deep-seated fear. The promise of Mamdani’s campaign — resistance to fascist overreach, care for the community, the end of ivory-tower bureaucracy — is hard to accept for New Yorkers now accustomed to lies and compromise. That is not to say that Mamdani’s promises are a guarantee; even the slimmest victory will have to be hard-fought in Albany and Washington. The alternative, however, is Cuomo: equal parts corrupt and complacent. With the spectre of fascism looming, what is there to lose?
Gavin O’Sullivan, FCRH ‘27, is an English major from Monroe, NY.
