One year after launching a bold campaign with a promise to make New York City more affordable and equitable, Zohran Mamdani has emerged as the frontrunner in the city’s hotly contested mayoral race. On October 22, 2025, Mamdani took center stage in the final mayoral debate, where his progressive agenda and personal authenticity faced blistering scrutiny from rivals Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa. Yet, despite the heated exchanges and pointed criticisms, the city’s business and political elite appear resigned to the likelihood that Mamdani—a self-proclaimed Marxist and state assemblyman—will soon occupy City Hall.
The debate, broadcast to a city still reckoning with the fallout from years of rising taxes, homelessness, and public safety concerns, saw Mamdani relentlessly attacked over allegations including antisemitism and what opponents called “pie-in-the-sky” ideas about rent control and public transit. Cuomo and Sliwa seized on Mamdani’s refusal to take a clear stance on key ballot initiatives, provoking groans from the audience and fueling doubts about his readiness to govern. As reported by The New York Post, one Wall Street insider lamented, “It helps Cuomo, but it doesn’t close a 10-point gap. Unfortunately, we’re going to have a f–king Jew-hating socialist running this city barring a miracle.”
Yet, even as the debate raged, many of the city’s top financial executives were conspicuously absent from their television screens. According to sources cited by The New York Post, some business leaders have already accepted Mamdani’s likely victory, viewing it as the latest chapter in a city that has, in their eyes, already veered sharply left. “Either way, we’re going to be fine,” said a senior executive at a major bank. “Of course, we would like someone else, but he’s not going to do all that much damage.”
This sense of resignation is rooted in a decade-long exodus of financial jobs and capital from New York to lower-tax, business-friendly states like Texas and Florida. JPMorgan, the nation’s largest bank, recently completed a multi-billion dollar office tower in Midtown, but now employs more people in Texas than in and around its Manhattan headquarters. As The New York Post notes, “JP Morgan has been shifting increasingly large swaths of its operation to venues where taxes are lower and criminals don’t benefit from bail reform and roam free.” Rival stock exchanges have sprung up in Dallas and Miami. For many on Wall Street, the city’s political direction is less a cause for panic than a reason to hedge their bets elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Mamdani’s campaign has thrived on a message of moral clarity, consistency, and grassroots engagement. His journey began exactly one year before the debate, when he released a campaign ad that featured subway cars, crowded buses, and walk-up apartments—the everyday realities of working-class New Yorkers. The ad set the tone for a campaign built on promises of free public transit, rent freezes, and city-run grocery stores to address food deserts and affordability. “It was about living New York, not just governing it,” wrote the LA Progressive, describing how the ad resonated with renters, students, and transit riders who saw their struggles reflected in Mamdani’s platform.
During the debate, Mamdani defended his proposal to make all city buses free, estimating the cost at $700 million annually. “It could cost $700 million a year to make the slowest buses in the country fast and free,” he stated, “but the city would generate more than double in economic revenue for New Yorkers across the city.” He argued that eliminating fares would “reduce assaults on bus drivers,” “increase ridership on those buses,” and “actually have environmental impacts as fewer New Yorkers would drive their own car or take a taxi and would instead get on the bus.” As he reminded viewers, he had already “delivered it as the state assembly member who won the first free buses in New York City’s history.”
This ambitious plan drew immediate comparisons to Kansas City, which became the first major U.S. city to eliminate bus fares in 2020. However, as reported by KCUR and referenced in the debate, Kansas City was forced to reinstate fares and reduce route frequency after the local transportation authority warned of looming budget shortfalls. In April 2025, the city council allocated $46.7 million to keep the system running through October while searching for new funding sources. Critics argue that Mamdani’s plan would face similar challenges in New York, especially given the city’s size and fiscal constraints.
But Mamdani’s platform extends beyond transit. He has called for city-run grocery stores, higher property taxes in “richer and whiter neighborhoods,” and even the purchase of private housing for communal use. His vision is unapologetically radical, rooted in the belief that “New York’s future belongs to the people who can no longer afford to wait for change,” as the LA Progressive put it. Throughout the campaign, Mamdani has maintained a consistent focus on affordability, housing, and dignity for working-class residents, often contrasting his message with Cuomo’s “nostalgia for a bygone era” and Sliwa’s “trademark bluster.”
Despite persistent attacks on his experience and ideological leanings, Mamdani has managed to turn criticism into strength. When Cuomo dismissed him as inexperienced, Mamdani retorted, “If you want a mayor who tells you everything he can’t do, Cuomo’s your guy.” He refused to be baited by questions about identity and faith, declaring, “I have never, not once, supported violence,” and steering the conversation back to policy and the politics of peace and justice.
Polling reported by Breitbart News shows Mamdani leading the race with 43 percent support, buoyed by strong backing from foreign-born voters and younger residents. According to Newsweek, every credible model now places Mamdani’s chance of victory at 92.8 percent—a testament to the momentum his campaign has built over the past year. His rise has not gone unnoticed by national figures: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned that Mamdani’s agenda “reflects a growing embrace of socialism among Democrats nationally.” The campaign has also received millions in indirect funding from organizations linked to George Soros and endorsements from left-wing activist groups.
New York’s business community, meanwhile, is hedging its bets. The Partnership for New York City, led by Kathryn Wylde, has hosted meet-and-greet sessions between Mamdani and the city’s financial heavyweights, including former mayor and Bloomberg LP founder Mike Bloomberg. Some executives speculate that Mamdani’s inexperience may limit his ability to enact sweeping changes, while others suggest he could be “bought like many other committed progressives.” As one business leader shrugged to The New York Post, “How bad can he be?”
With the mayoral election set for November 4, 2025, the city stands at a crossroads. Mamdani’s campaign, built on authenticity and a promise of transformative change, has tapped into the anxieties and aspirations of a city in flux. Whether he can deliver on his ambitious agenda—or whether the realities of governing will force compromise—remains to be seen. One thing is clear: New York voters are poised to make a choice that could redefine the city’s future for years to come.
