Last night’s New York City mayoral debate, held at the 30 Rock studio in Manhattan without a live audience, offered a quiet setting that still exposed sharp contrasts among the three candidates. The moderators avoided tough follow-up questions, allowing Zohran Mamdani to coast through with polished talking points about fairness and housing without explaining how his communist-like platform would actually work.
Andrew Cuomo, once positioned as the experienced adult in the race, gave a lackluster performance that failed to reestablish him as a serious contender. Curtis Sliwa, the Republican, offered the clearest answers and the most realistic grasp of city policy, but even his strong showing will not be enough to overcome New York’s partisan landscape.
Mamdani Avoids the Details
Mamdani repeated familiar slogans about affordability, fairness, and taxing the rich. He spoke passionately about socialist buzz words like “inequality” and reshaping city systems, but stayed vague about what that meant in practical terms, because he has no practical plans. The moderators never asked for specifics on how he would balance the budget, what programs he would fund, or where the money would come from. When pressed by Cuomo about his lack of experience, Mamdani fired back, saying, “What I don’t have in experience I make up for in integrity, and what you don’t have in integrity you could never make up for in experience,” according to Fox News.
It was a sharp comeback that drew attention, but it didn’t change the fact that Mamdani’s answers on housing and policing were broad and emotional rather than detailed. On crime, he distanced himself from the “defund the police” label and instead called for “restructuring” public safety, but he means the same thing. The moderators let him move on without pressing for clarity.
Cuomo tried to corner him on foreign policy, pointing out his reluctance to condemn Hamas and accusing him of alienating Jewish New Yorkers. Mamdani responded that he supports a ceasefire and humanitarian aid but avoided a direct answer on the substance of the criticism. The exchange ended without a challenge from the moderators, leaving Mamdani’s record largely unexamined.
Throughout the night, he came off as confident and polished, but his vision for a “socialist New York” remained light on substance and heavy on slogans, which is basically the only way socialism works when spoon-fed to voters.
Cuomo Misses His Moment
Cuomo entered the debate hoping to position himself as the experienced moderate alternative. Instead, he spent most of the night defending his record and revisiting old wounds from his time as governor. He did land a few pointed lines, including one aimed squarely at Mamdani: “He has literally never had a job. This is not a job for someone who has no management experience,” he said. But the rest of Cuomo’s performance lacked focus, a common theme during his political tenure in debate settings.
When Mamdani accused him of sending seniors to their deaths in nursing homes during the pandemic, Cuomo offered a defensive explanation, saying that decisions were made in real time under intense pressure. It was a reminder of the controversies that pushed him out of office and continue to define his reputation. In short, Mamdami is terrible, and Cuomo is just as bad. New Yorkers won’t forget that.
Cuomo also attacked Mamdani for his ties to the Democratic Socialists of America and his support for decriminalizing low-level offenses. Mamdani denied backing full decriminalization of prostitution, saying he supports removing penalties for sex workers but keeping them for traffickers. The exchange could have been revealing, but again, the moderators didn’t follow up.
Cuomo’s performance felt tired. Instead of laying out a forward-looking vision, he spent much of the night revisiting the past. He may have avoided major mistakes, but he didn’t inspire confidence either. In short, Cuomo left the door open for Mamdami to likely win come November.
Sliwa Brings the Most Substance
Curtis Sliwa was the only candidate who seemed ready to govern and bring in a new perspective to the city. He answered questions directly, cited facts and figures, and kept the focus on public safety, affordability, and accountability. He criticized both of his opponents for talking in abstractions while ignoring the everyday realities of New Yorkers struggling with crime and the cost of living.
Sliwa said the city “has been run by ideology instead of practicality,” a line that summed up his case against both Mamdani and Cuomo. He came across as the most prepared and serious candidate on stage, but even his strongest supporters know the odds are steep. In a city dominated by Democrats, a Republican faces an almost impossible climb, especially when running against what amounts to two Democrats. Still, for viewers looking for substance over style, Sliwa’s answers stood out.
Sliwa is the only sane choice for any city resident who wants to be able to sleep at night knowing they didn’t vote for the commie or the Cuomo retread.
Voters Left With No Good Option
The debate left New Yorkers with few real options. Mamdani offers empty socialist rhetoric without a plan. Cuomo has experience but carries years of baggage and mistrust. Sliwa speaks with clarity and competence, but has little chance in a city that rarely elects Republicans.
It boils down to another lose-lose election — a socialist who won’t show the math, a former governor still haunted by scandal, and a reform-minded Republican with no path to victory.