Staff Reports
The final New York City mayoral debate on October 22, 2025, clearly underscored the sharp ideological and experiential divides among the three candidates: Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo, and Curtis Sliwa. Mamdani, despite leading the polls by a wide margin, faces criticism for his lack of traditional work experience and reliance on his privileged background. While he champions ambitious progressive proposals like free public transit and universal childcare funded by higher taxes on the wealthy, many question the practicality and long-term consequences of such sweeping plans. These ideas risk placing a heavier burden on taxpayers and businesses already struggling under the city’s high cost of living.
Andrew Cuomo, attempting a political comeback after his controversial governorship, positioned himself as the candidate with tangible experience and a proven ability to govern. Despite his extensive political record, many remain wary of his past, including the handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic and his abuse scandals. Cuomo criticized Mamdani for being untested and lacking a real job history, but his own contentious history leaves voters skeptical of any return to old-style political patronage and scandals.
Curtis Sliwa offered a clear contrast with his focus on law and order, personal responsibility, and traditional values. His straightforward approach struck a chord with many New Yorkers concerned about rising crime and the failure of current policies to address illegal immigration or enforce public safety efficiently. Although Sliwa faces an uphill battle in a city dominated by liberal voters, his candid discussion about restoring order offers a necessary counterpoint to the radical, often impractical policy proposals from Mamdani.
The candidates’ debate also highlighted stark differences over immigration enforcement, with Mamdani opposing deportations and Cuomo criticizing immigration raids, while Sliwa emphasized a tougher stance on law enforcement cooperation. These positions reflect broader national tensions about the balance between security and compassion, but for New Yorkers facing rising crime rates, Sliwa’s law-and-order message may resonate more clearly than Mamdani’s leniency or Cuomo’s political maneuvering.
Ultimately, the debate revealed that New York City’s future leadership hinges on voters’ willingness to prioritize experience, practical governance, and public safety over idealistic but potentially disruptive promises. While Mamdani may inspire progressive enthusiasm, the city’s complex challenges demand more than lofty rhetoric—requiring leaders with proven judgment and grounded policies to secure a safe and prosperous future for all New Yorkers.
