Sliwa vs. Mamdani: The Real Mayoral Race Has Begun

One’s speaking directly; the other’s performing. New Yorkers can tell the difference.

This election is about more than personalities; it’s a referendum on how New Yorkers want to be governed. From the outset, the contrast is unmistakable: Curtis Sliwa’s plainspoken, straightforward style stands in sharp relief to Zohran Mamdani’s polished, performative approach. The race has effectively narrowed to these two contenders. Although Andrew Cuomo entered with significant name recognition and a long résumé, his debate performances revealed a striking lack of vitality. His sluggish answers, disengaged demeanor, and faded energy have pushed him to the margins of the conversation.

Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels and a longtime fixture in New York public life, embodies a quintessentially New York brand of communication: direct, unscripted, and unvarnished. He doesn’t rely on carefully crafted talking points or focus-grouped sound bites. Even when airtime is limited, his messaging stays concise, punchy, and clear. A product of the city’s streets, Sliwa rose to prominence by building grassroots safety networks and speaking the language of everyday New Yorkers. He has also earned a reputation as a vocal and consistent supporter of the Jewish community. He stands firmly with Israel, speaks out forcefully against antisemitism, and maintains a visible presence in neighborhoods with vibrant Jewish life — especially in Queens. His decades-long record of showing up for Jewish causes, defending Jewish New Yorkers, and aligning with Israel has given him lasting credibility among Jewish voters.

Transitioning from Sliwa’s approach to Mamdani’s highlights a fundamental contrast in communication styles. Mamdani is an undeniably gifted speaker: quick, sharp, and skilled at energizing a crowd. But while Sliwa prioritizes plainspoken clarity, Mamdani often relies on rhetorical redirection. He sidesteps substance, using rhythm, tone, and delivery to project authority without offering concrete answers. This approach has earned him the nickname “Three Card Mamdani,” a nod to the classic street game in which slick showmanship conceals sleight of hand.

Sliwa’s political posture is notably more transparent. A clear example is his stated willingness to support NYPD cooperation with ICE in the event of a major public safety threat, such as the incident that unfolded in Chicago. One may agree or disagree with this stance, but there’s no mistaking where he stands. In a political climate crowded with hedged statements and strategic ambiguity, that kind of clarity stands out. He has also consistently shown up for the Jewish community in moments of both joy and crisis, defending the rights and safety of Jewish New Yorkers and publicly reaffirming his solidarity with Israel.

The core question for voters is this: Do they want a mayor who speaks directly to the daily realities of working New Yorkers — the commuters, small business owners, and families living with the outcomes of City Hall’s decisions — or a candidate whose appeal rests on stagecraft and rhetorical flourish? Framing the race around this question lays bare the choice and underscores its long-term consequences for the city.

Cuomo has faded from focus. Mamdani is banking on charisma and spectacle. Sliwa has positioned himself as the blunt, unfiltered voice willing to take stands without euphemism — and as a consistent ally of Jewish neighborhoods across New York, especially in Queens.

The choice before New Yorkers is about substance over spectacle — a test of whether we’ll reward authenticity over artifice. It’s time to cut through the noise, demand clarity from those who seek to lead, and vote with the city’s future in mind. The contrast is clear: grit versus gloss, substance versus performance. New Yorkers have always had a sharp instinct for spotting the difference. This election may be the moment when that instinct matters most at the ballot box.

By Shabsie Saphirstein