Zohran Mamdani, the leading Democratic contender in the race for New York City mayor, approached the final debate with a measured strategy, aiming to avoid controversy while asserting his vision for the city. In contrast, his opponents—former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, running as an independent, and Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa—adopted aggressive tactics, targeting Mamdani’s youth and relative lack of political experience.
The debate, held just days before early voting begins for the November 4 election, was a microcosm of the broader contest: sharp contrasts in style, policy priorities, and personal attacks, all unfolding in front of a citywide audience. While Cuomo and Sliwa sought to put Mamdani on the defensive, the young Democrat largely focused on presenting himself as a capable, unifying figure who could bridge divides and build a forward-looking administration.
Cuomo Comes Out Swinging
Andrew Cuomo, often criticized for his subdued debate performances in recent weeks, appeared revitalized. From the opening moments, he pressed Mamdani on his lack of executive experience and emphasized his own credentials as a seasoned politician.
“My main opponent has no new ideas,” Cuomo said, pointing to what he described as a continuation of former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s policies. “He has never run anything, never managed anything—he’s never had a real job.”
Cuomo’s approach was methodical. He hammered Mamdani on specific issues where the Democratic front-runner had refrained from taking public positions, including critical housing initiatives on the ballot. This line of questioning was designed to expose what Cuomo framed as Mamdani’s evasiveness and inexperience, while reinforcing his own track record in governance.
Experience, Cuomo argued, was indispensable in a city grappling with complex challenges like homelessness, public safety, and economic inequality. “If you want to be in government, you have to be serious and mature,” he said, positioning himself as a figure who can deliver practical solutions.
However, Cuomo’s attacks were inevitably tied to his controversial tenure as governor. Questions about his handling of the homelessness crisis in New York City and the lingering fallout from sexual harassment allegations that led to his resignation in 2021 resurfaced during the debate. Mamdani directly addressed these issues when he questioned Cuomo about the women who accused him, including Charlotte Bennett, who was present in the audience.
“You sought to access her private gynecological records,” Mamdani said. “She cannot speak for herself because of your defamation case. But I can ask: what do you say to the 13 women who say you sexually harassed them?”
This moment highlighted the tense interplay between policy and personal accountability, reflecting a key dynamic of the debate: each candidate not only had to outline their vision for the city but also navigate questions of credibility and integrity.
Mamdani Plays It Safe
Throughout the debate, Mamdani maintained a cautious approach, avoiding policy pitfalls while emphasizing competence and leadership potential. He frequently smiled into the camera, projecting confidence while sidestepping questions that could spark controversy.
On housing, a central issue in the mayoral race, Mamdani repeatedly declined to take definitive stances on measures that would significantly alter the city’s housing landscape. “I have not yet taken a position on those,” he said when pressed, a response that drew vocal criticism from both Cuomo and Sliwa.
Democratic leaders are split on these measures. Governor Kathy Hochul has supported them, citing potential gains in housing production, while parts of the City Council argue they could undermine local oversight. Mamdani’s measured stance seems designed to avoid alienating either faction while allowing time to assess public sentiment.
Education was another area where Mamdani kept his messaging broad. When questioned about public schools, he emphasized universal principles without delving into specifics: “Every child deserves an excellent public education, and we have not consistently seen that under current stewardship,” he said, avoiding commitment to detailed policy proposals that could be controversial.
Police Commissioner Tisch: A Key Signal
One of the most consequential announcements came when Mamdani confirmed plans to retain Jessica Tisch as police commissioner. Tisch, appointed by Mayor Eric Adams last November, has been widely credited with initiatives aimed at reducing crime and enhancing accountability in the NYPD.
“Commissioner Tisch took on a broken status quo,” Mamdani said. “She has started delivering accountability, rooting out corruption, and improving public safety across the five boroughs.”
This decision is strategic, signaling to moderate voters and business leaders that Mamdani, despite his past critiques of the police, would support proven leadership in law enforcement. Both Cuomo and Sliwa questioned the likelihood of this commitment, highlighting ideological differences with Tisch and casting doubt on Mamdani’s promises.
Facing Attacks from Both Sides
Mamdani frequently found himself the target of coordinated attacks from Cuomo and Sliwa, forcing him onto the defensive. The dual criticism focused on his age, his relatively short tenure in public office, and questions about his ability to address antisemitism effectively.
Sliwa, whose children are Jewish, expressed concerns that Mamdani would not adequately protect the city’s Jewish community. He also accused Mamdani of supporting “global jihad,” a charge Mamdani vehemently denied, framing it as an unfair attack rooted in bias against his Muslim faith.
Cuomo joined in on these critiques, highlighting perceived inconsistencies in Mamdani’s policy positions and his hesitation on key issues. Together, these attacks created a moment where Mamdani had to defend both his record and his identity, emphasizing that faith and ethnicity would not dictate his governance.
Sliwa Sharpens Focus on Policy
Curtis Sliwa, who earned attention in previous debates with quips and theatrical moments, adopted a more disciplined approach this time, concentrating on substantive policy issues.
The debate’s structure allowed Sliwa more time to articulate his positions without interruptions, which highlighted his expertise on specific matters like public safety, city services, and economic management. However, this in-depth discussion came at a cost: some of the quick-witted interjections that made him a viral sensation were absent, leaving his performance less flashy but arguably more credible.
Sliwa challenged Mamdani on initiatives such as the free bus program, asking pointedly about the financial implications: “You talk about free, free, free, but somebody has to pay for it.” He also pressed Cuomo on past controversies, though the former governor deflected these questions.
Immigration, Federal Intervention, and Trump
A critical topic in the debate was the recent ICE raids on Canal Street, which raised broader questions about federal involvement in city affairs and the role of law enforcement.
Cuomo argued that a confrontational stance would be required when dealing with former President Trump, citing his experience as governor: “When Trump puts his finger in your chest, you have to put your finger right back in his chest.”
Mamdani countered with a commitment to end what he described as collaboration between City Hall and federal agencies under Mayor Adams. At the same time, he emphasized willingness to work with the president on shared goals, such as affordability and housing.
Sliwa offered a more nuanced perspective, advocating negotiation and restraint over confrontation: “You can’t beat Trump. He holds most of the cards,” he said, while insisting that federal authorities should not have intervened in local affairs.
Humor and One-Liners Amid Serious Policy Debate
Despite the high-stakes issues, the debate featured moments of levity and sharp humor. Mamdani criticized Cuomo’s record on homelessness, noting a disparity between city spending on symbolic projects like a “singing water fountain” at LaGuardia Airport and investments in affordable housing.
Sliwa targeted both opponents in a witty fashion, joking that Mamdani’s résumé “could fit on a cocktail napkin” while Cuomo’s failures could fill a public school library. Cuomo returned the banter, emphasizing Mamdani’s youth and framing him as untested in political combat.
These moments, while entertaining, underscored the underlying tension of the race: candidates were forced to balance policy discussions with personal narratives, identity politics, and strategic messaging designed to sway undecided voters.
Looking Ahead
With early voting set to begin on Saturday, the final debate provided voters with a last opportunity to assess the candidates’ readiness and vision for New York City. Mamdani’s cautious but composed performance contrasted with the more aggressive tactics of Cuomo and Sliwa, highlighting both generational and ideological divides in the race.
Cuomo sought to reassert his experience and credibility, Mamdani aimed to project steadiness and unifying leadership, and Sliwa leveraged his outsider persona and policy knowledge to appeal to Republican and independent voters. The interplay of policy, personality, and performance will be critical as the city heads into the final days before the election.
Ultimately, the debate underscored the complexity of New York City politics, where candidates must simultaneously navigate local issues like housing, education, and public safety, while contending with national-level figures and partisan tensions. Voters are left weighing not just promises, but the character, experience, and temperament of each contender—factors that could prove decisive on November 4.