admin
Thursday’s citywide debate was exactly what sensible New Yorkers feared: three candidates trading cheap shots while the real problems get worse. Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa stood on stage in a forum hosted by NBC, and the hour-long spectacle on October 16 laid bare the contrast between radical promises and failed old-guard excuses.
Mamdani strutted out a menu of utopian promises — rent freezes for millions, city-run grocery stores, free buses and massive new union-built housing — proposals that sound nice on camera but would crush the city’s finances and freedom. He painted himself as the champion of anyone who’s ever been squeezed by high rents, but the debate showed he hasn’t offered a credible plan to pay for any of it, instead doubling down on tax-and-spend populism.
Polling already suggested Mamdani is marching toward a landslide, and the debate did nothing to slow him down, which should alarm every taxpayer who values public safety and prosperous neighborhoods. The mainstream outlets and polls show him running well ahead, proving that New York is flirting with a radical left experiment that could remake the city in ways that won’t be easily reversed.
Andrew Cuomo’s attempt at a comeback looked hollow and rehearsed; he spent more time on the defensive than offering a vision for restoring order and opportunity. Viewers watched a man who once governed the state stumble through exchanges — even awkwardly avoiding saying Mamdani’s name at times — a reminder that past scandals and a lack of fresh ideas make him a weak alternative.
Meanwhile, the campaign environment smells worse than a political disagreement: reports that CUNY faculty emails were used to push Mamdani’s campaign show the cozy relationship between public institutions and progressive operatives. If public resources are being weaponized to aid a partisan candidate, that isn’t grassroots democracy — it’s a rigged playing field that deserves swift investigation and prosecution where laws were broken.
Curtis Sliwa showed flashes of the straightforward, law-and-order message conservatives want, calling for property-tax reform and sharper focus on crime, but he couldn’t quite break through last night’s chaos. Sliwa’s presence matters because New Yorkers need a candidate serious about public safety and common-sense fiscal restraint, yet the split vote between him and Cuomo risks handing control to a far-left agenda that will saddle working families with higher bills.
The takeaway for patriotic, hardworking New Yorkers is simple: this wasn’t a debate that offered solutions, it offered a choice between expensive socialism and recycled political theater. If conservatives and moderates want to save what’s left of this city’s middle class and safe streets, it’s time to organize, vote, and reject the extravagant promises and insider maneuvering that dominated that stage.
