As of right now, Zohran Mamdani is the overwhelming favorite to be elected mayor of New York. Beyond his appeal to many New Yorkers on a variety of issues — most notably his extremely left-leaning policies intended to deal with the issue of affordability — in a race where three other candidates are poised to split the anti-Mamdani vote, his victory is all but assured.
Many major interest groups in New York believe a Mamdani victory would be disastrous. It is almost impossible to find a business leader who thinks Mamdani would not be highly destructive to the interests of the city. Similarly, many Jewish leaders think that a city with the biggest Jewish population outside of Tel Aviv shouldn’t have a mayor who still cannot disassociate himself completely from slogans supporting a “global intifada,” especially during a time of rising antisemitic incidents.
Moreover, hardly anyone who has expertise in law enforcement and crime reduction believes Mamdani is the best candidate to protect public safety — and for a large proportion of New Yorkers, that issue is right up there with affordability as a top concern.
Unfortunately, incumbent mayor Eric Adams and former governor Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani’s two major opponents, are both very flawed candidates. Many New Yorkers believe that Eric Adams’ federal indictment, which was subsequently dropped by the Trump Justice Department, is indicative of a corrupt administration. Indeed, given the circumstances under which it was dropped, many now view Adams as being in the pocket of President Donald Trump. Of course, New Yorkers being overwhelmingly Democratic, many believe Trump’s policies are antithetical to the city’s well-being, and the president himself is extremely unpopular in his native city.
Andrew Cuomo, having been forced to resign as governor amid a sexual harassment scandal, not to mention what many consider to be his very abrasive style, ran a horrendous primary campaign. I wrote a column recently suggesting Cuomo did not learn any lessons whatsoever from the failed Kamala Harris presidential campaign, making him absolutely guilty of political malpractice.
While the Republican in the race, Curtis Sliwa, has virtually no chance of winning the election, based on previous mayoral elections it is clear a Republican candidate will syphon away 200,000-300,000 votes, which could make all the difference for anybody with a chance of challenging Mamdani.
Under these circumstances, one might ask, how can Mamdani possibly lose? The answer is, under these circumstances he can’t. So, if one believes that Mamdani’s election would be an enormous setback for the city of New York, and many right-thinking people strongly believe that, why aren’t these circumstances being changed?
Underpinning the intensity of feeling that Mamdani would be a disastrous choice for the city is the impact of his election on national politics. There is no doubt that Trump and the Republican Party would point to Mamdani’s election to make the case that an avowed socialist, far to the left of most Americans’ political outlook, is what the Democratic Party fundamentally represents. Democrats would have a very difficult time distancing themselves from Mamdani as representative of what their party stands for. The recent fawning endorsement by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) certainly makes it appear that the most progressive members of the Democratic Party believe they should stand behind Mamdani.
It is also likely that Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) will in some form endorse Mamdani. In that case, it will be impossible for Democrats to meaningfully distance themselves from Mamdani’s most radical positions and policies. That perception will be extremely politically detrimental to the Democratic Party nationally.
So, bad for the nation’s largest city, bad for the Democratic Party, and bad for the nation overall given the importance of the Democrats mustering the ability to take back the House next year to counter Trump. If New York’s mayoral race does not fundamentally change by Labor Day — meaning the anti-Mamdani candidates consolidating behind a single horse — Mamdani will undoubtedly be the next mayor of New York. So how do these circumstances on the ground change? Answer: with great difficulty.
Mayor Adams, as the incumbent, contends that it is hubris for Cuomo to suggest he drop out of the race. Cuomo argues, with substantial polling data to back him up, that he is the only candidate who can beat Mamdani in a one-on-one contest.
The fact is that polling clearly suggests both Cuomo and Adams are weak candidates — over 60 percent of voters indicate they would never vote for either. However, the polls do suggest in a one-on-one race there is some chance Cuomo could beat Mamdani, and clearly also suggest Adams could not.
Among “likely” voters, both Adams and Cuomo lose to Mamdani. However, when it comes to registered voters, which is a much larger group, polls have shown Cuomo to be within the margin of error. However, Cuomo would have to expand voter turnout well beyond typical mayoral elections to really have a shot. Cuomo would also have to demonstrate to the public how detrimental a Mamdani win would be to New York City and the Democratic Party, and deliver a higher level of intensity and passion in his messaging. Moreover, he would need city leaders of all sectors and ethnicities to join the battle cry to get a record voter turnout.
So here is a modest proposal. It may sound radical, but a drastic situation calls for drastic measures. Mayor Adams should aim for a future that leverages his expertise and sets him up for a much better outcome than a career-ending loss in this race. He should announce that instead of pursuing public office again, he will set up a consulting firm to provide counseling to cities around the country on how to better provide for public safety. Crime rates in New York City have dropped dramatically in recent years so Adams has insights based on a credible track record to offer. Cuomo has a substantial monied interest behind him, including many donors who care about keeping New York safe. As a show of unity, they should commit resources — even as much as $10 million — to help Adams bring his experience to cities across the nation.
I think Sliwa is an easier case to handle. Sliwa siphoning off votes in this race will only lead to the election of a mayor who will undermine all the public safety concerns he has fought for his entire life. That should not be his personal legacy. Cuomo should offer him a position as deputy mayor in his administration — a much better result and a goal to rally Republicans behind.
Getting Adams and Sliwa out of the race will not be enough. Cuomo, in deep contrast to his primary performance, will have to campaign his heart out, drive a completely different social media presence, demonstrate incredible sensitivity on the affordability issue especially as it relates to housing, showcase the difference between his law enforcement views and Mamdani’s, and continue to rally the Jewish community in opposition to Mamdani’s anti-Israel, if not antisemitic, views.
I recognize clearing the path for Cuomo to take on Mamdani on a one-on-one race is a tall order. However, the future of New York City and the Democratic Party’s midterm election prospects rest on it. Let’s get serious. Time is running out. To those Cuomo backers with the money to execute this plan: you need to get going.
Tom Rogers is executive chairman of Claigrid, Inc. (the cloud AI grid company), an editor-at-large for Newsweek, the founder of CNBC and a CNBC contributor. He also established MSNBC, is the former CEO of TiVo, a member of Keep Our Republic (an organization dedicated to preserving the nation’s democracy). He is also a member of the American Bar Association Task Force on Democracy.
