New York City’s 2025 mayoral race has become one of the most complicated, fraught, and unpredictable elections in recent memory. With the field now narrowed to Zohran, Cuomo, and Sliwa, voters are faced with choices that are not just about ideology, but about survival, strategy, and navigating an increasingly hostile political landscape. For progressives like myself, the ideal candidate might be Zohran, whose policies, priorities, and vision align most closely with progressive values. Yet, the harsh reality of the current political climate forces a difficult, almost paradoxical consideration: the candidate who seems “best” on paper may be the one most likely to inadvertently trigger chaos for the city and its residents. It is a difficult truth to acknowledge, but in 2025, strategy and pragmatism may outweigh pure ideology.
On paper, Zohran represents the progressive path I most agree with. His stances on affordable housing, climate action, policing reforms, and social equity resonate with my own values. Listening to him, reading his plans, and reflecting on his track record, it is easy to see why so many progressives support him. I am no exception. Ideologically, Zohran embodies the future I would like to see: a city committed to justice, inclusivity, and fairness. His policies promise real change in a city that has long struggled with inequality, entrenched power structures, and political stagnation. In an ideal world, a Zohran victory would signal a decisive shift toward progressive governance and transformative leadership.
But this is not an ideal world. The political realities surrounding Zohran’s candidacy make his potential victory perilous. President Trump’s explicit threats to withhold federal funding from NYC if Zohran wins, combined with warnings of active obstruction, create a scenario where the city’s operations could be paralyzed before the new mayor even takes office. It is not a question of Zohran’s competence or commitment—he is undoubtedly capable—but the stacked opposition against him is monumental. The state government, parts of the federal government, and entrenched institutional players are positioned to resist and obstruct him at every turn. This creates a preemptive storm of chaos, one that threatens to grind NYC’s complex machinery to a halt.
The potential fallout is staggering. Imagine city services slowed or stalled, funding for essential programs blocked, and federal interference at nearly every level. The public perception, however, would be simple and unforgiving: Zohran would be blamed. The chaos, though largely caused by external actors, would inevitably be cast as his failure, his inability to govern. The narrative would be relentless, unforgiving, and simplified for mass consumption. For a city as large, diverse, and interconnected as New York, the consequences of such a narrative could extend far beyond political debates—they could affect real lives, from housing programs to healthcare, transportation, and public safety. This is not a hypothetical; it is a scenario with precedent in other instances where political actors have weaponized bureaucracy to punish leaders they oppose.
Even knowing all this, I find it difficult to reconcile my personal agreement with Zohran’s platform and the pragmatic realities of the situation. As a progressive, I naturally want to support the candidate whose policies align with my values. Yet, as a New Yorker aware of the city’s fragile ecosystem and the external pressures poised to attack any progressive administration, I cannot ignore the practical implications of a Zohran win. The risk to NYC itself is too high, and the human consequences of paralyzed governance too significant. It is an uncomfortable position—one that forces the acknowledgment that sometimes, principles alone are insufficient to navigate the complex terrain of modern politics.
That brings us to Cuomo, the other major contender. Cuomo, while a familiar figure with deep political experience, represents the continuation of establishment power structures. He is aligned with the traditional mechanisms of governance, deeply entrenched in networks of influence, and notably, he carries the endorsement of Trump. To call Cuomo the “establishment pick” is to understate the stakes: his victory would cement a continuation of existing patterns of governance, characterized by bureaucratic inertia, deference to federal oversight, and incrementalism at best. While he may not threaten outright chaos like a Zohran presidency might provoke externally, Cuomo offers little in the way of meaningful change. He is, in essence, the spiritual successor to former mayor Eric Adams: a safe, predictable candidate who prioritizes stability and political alignment over transformative action.
Cuomo’s candidacy thus presents a different kind of dilemma. There is no external “chaos” necessarily, but there is stagnation, complacency, and the extension of policies that have long frustrated progressives. For voters seeking meaningful change, Cuomo’s win would be a disappointment, a continuation of the status quo that leaves the city beholden to both old political machines and external influences. Importantly, his establishment position and alignment with Trump make him the candidate who, in my estimation, must lose—because while he preserves functionality, he does so at the cost of independence, autonomy, and the potential for progress. Cuomo embodies predictability and control, but also the continued dominance of entrenched power.
This leaves Sliwa, the Republican candidate, whose position in the race is both unconventional and paradoxical. On paper, he is the candidate whose policies and political orientation are furthest from my own. Yet, in the specific context of 2025, Sliwa represents a wildcard. Unlike Cuomo, Sliwa has little to no political experience; he is not entrenched in the establishment, and he is not Trump’s preferred candidate. This outsider status, often considered a liability in conventional elections, may, in this rare scenario, become an asset. Sliwa’s lack of political baggage allows him to maneuver with a level of freedom that neither Cuomo nor Zohran can enjoy. He may be able to bypass the red tape, push through bureaucracy, and make executive decisions with less interference from entrenched systems.
Furthermore, Sliwa’s status as someone Trump actively dislikes positions him uniquely in a political landscape increasingly defined by federal obstruction and coercion. Where Zohran would be immediately targeted, Sliwa may enjoy a measure of breathing room. He might, paradoxically, have more latitude to “play hardball,” challenge bureaucratic resistance, and even stand up against Trump in ways that Zohran could not. While Sliwa’s ideological orientation is not aligned with progressive values, the practical benefits of his candidacy in terms of city functionality and autonomy are considerable. In other words, in a city facing external threats, Sliwa’s outsider status and relative independence may make him the candidate most capable of preserving the city’s operations and resilience.
This is not an endorsement born of shared ideology. It is a strategic, pragmatic, and deeply conflicted choice. For progressives like myself, the reality of the 2025 mayoral race forces the acknowledgment that values alone may be insufficient when external actors threaten to weaponize governance. Zohran may be the candidate whose vision aligns with my own, but the stacked opposition against him creates a scenario where his victory could be catastrophic, through no fault of his own. Cuomo, though experienced and competent, represents the continuation of entrenched power and the extension of Trump-aligned influence—a predictable but ultimately unappealing outcome. Sliwa, by contrast, offers the rare combination of independence, outsider freedom, and relative immunity from the political pressures that would immediately target Zohran.
It is worth emphasizing that this assessment does not diminish the legitimacy of Zohran’s platform or the importance of progressive policies. Rather, it highlights the complexity of modern political strategy, especially in a city as large, interconnected, and politically visible as New York. Sometimes, the “best” candidate ideologically is not the safest candidate pragmatically, and the “least aligned” candidate may paradoxically offer the greatest chance for stability and maneuverability. For voters who are forced to consider not just ideology, but the cascading consequences of external pressures, the choice becomes one of calculated compromise rather than pure alignment.
Moreover, the dynamics of voter agency and majority choice must be considered. While I may personally choose to vote for Sliwa as a safeguard against external chaos, I cannot control the collective decisions of the electorate. Should the majority of voters favor Zohran, the predicted chaos may unfold regardless of individual votes. This recognition reinforces the need for mental and strategic preparation: accepting the possibility of outcomes I consider undesirable, preparing for potential crises, and planning for the operational realities of NYC governance in a politically volatile environment. The choice to vote Sliwa, then, is not simply about preference—it is about mitigating risk, preserving functional governance, and safeguarding the city’s operational integrity.
In many ways, the 2025 mayoral race forces a new kind of political calculation, one in which survival, strategic positioning, and functional outcomes intersect with ideology. It is a reminder that elections are not abstract contests of ideas—they are high-stakes, real-world tests in which the machinery of government, the forces of power, and the unpredictability of human actors all interact. For progressives, this race may be particularly jarring: supporting the candidate whose ideology aligns with our values may simultaneously expose the city to chaos, while supporting a candidate whose values diverge from our own may protect the city from immediate harm. It is a cruel irony, but one that underscores the complexity of political decision-making in 2025.
Ultimately, my conclusion, however conflicted, is that Sliwa represents the candidate with the best chance of preserving NYC’s functionality in the face of extreme external pressures. Zohran, despite ideological alignment, is vulnerable to obstruction and chaos that could be catastrophic for the city and its residents. Cuomo, while predictable and competent, embodies the continuation of establishment power and Trump-aligned influence. Sliwa, though a Republican outsider, offers the potential to act with independence, navigate bureaucracy, and push back against Trump when necessary—a rare combination in this tumultuous moment.
This is not an easy position to take, and it is not without moral or ideological discomfort. Supporting Sliwa does not mean abandoning progressive principles, but it does require acknowledging that, in certain circumstances, pragmatism and strategy must intersect with values in order to protect the city and its residents. The choice is not one of idealism, but of navigating the practical realities of 2025 politics: preserving stability where possible, mitigating chaos where necessary, and making the difficult calculations that come with living in an era of unprecedented political polarization, federal interference, and systemic uncertainty.
New York City, as always, is a crucible—a place where ideas, politics, and strategy collide, and where every election carries consequences far beyond the ballot. For progressives like myself, the 2025 mayoral race offers a lesson in hard choices, strategic thinking, and the sometimes painful necessity of compromise. Supporting Sliwa is not an endorsement of his ideology, but a recognition of the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this election, and a commitment to ensuring that, whatever the outcome, NYC has a chance to continue functioning, to continue serving its residents, and to continue resisting external pressures that seek to undermine it.
In the end, this is the conflicted calculus that defines the 2025 NYC mayoral race: ideology versus pragmatism, principles versus survival, values versus functionality. Zohran represents the ideal, Cuomo represents the establishment, and Sliwa—paradoxically—represents the wildcard capable of preserving the city amid unprecedented external pressures. As a progressive, I may disagree with his policies, but in this rare moment, Sliwa may be the choice that allows New York City not just to survive, but to maintain the possibility of thriving despite the turbulence ahead.