Introduction: The Unthinkable Choice
As a lifelong progressive, I never thought I’d find myself in the position of voting for a Republican. Yet, here we are, in the lead-up to the 2025 New York City mayoral race, and my stance has evolved—out of necessity, not ideology. This election, I’m seriously considering casting my vote for a candidate who represents the very political party I’ve spent my entire adult life opposing. This isn’t a decision I’ve come to lightly. It’s one that’s rooted in the reality of the current political landscape, and it reflects the hard truths of what’s at stake.
In 2025, the stakes for New York City couldn’t be higher. The political climate is fraught with uncertainty, division, and the looming presence of Donald Trump’s influence over national politics. But the reality is, as a progressive, I believe my best chance for ensuring some stability for New York City—while maintaining a fighting chance for progressive goals—is with Curtis Sliwa, a Republican, to keep an even worse Republican—Donald Trump—at bay.
Let me explain how I arrived at this conclusion.
The Political Landscape Before 2025
Before the 2025 race, I would have never even considered voting for a Republican, let alone one as unconventional as Curtis Sliwa. For years, my political ideology has been rooted in progressive values—advocating for social justice, economic reform, and environmental sustainability. I’ve spent countless hours campaigning for Democratic candidates, supporting movements aimed at dismantling oppressive systems, and fighting for the rights of marginalized communities. To even consider supporting someone outside of the Democratic or progressive sphere was, frankly, unthinkable.
But then, 2025 happened.
The landscape changed. The potential for chaos grew. Zohran Mamdani, a candidate I had initially hoped could bring a new wave of progressivism to the city, came with a unique set of challenges. The external pressures he would face—both politically and socially—made me question whether he would ever be able to govern effectively. On top of that, the looming influence of Trump—and the way his presence looms over every political discourse—has fundamentally altered what it means to vote in this election.
Zohran Mamdani: The Chaos Candidate
Zohran Mamdani, a candidate who has inspired hope among many progressives, also represents a significant risk to the stability of New York City. While his progressive values are admirable, the external pressures he would face as mayor are impossible to ignore. The political climate is too polarized, too divided, for someone like Mamdani to thrive in such a hostile environment. His leadership would be immediately scrutinized, not only by right-wing factions but by Trump himself, who sees figures like Mamdani as an enemy.
The chaos that would erupt on day one of a Mamdani administration isn’t just a theoretical fear—it’s a real, palpable danger. Mamdani’s policies would be met with resistance not only from Republicans but from moderate Democrats as well. And while I support many of his progressive ideals, I recognize that his ability to govern would be severely hampered by the political fallout he would face.
If Mamdani were elected, the immediate political pushback would create a constant state of instability. That’s not a foundation upon which any meaningful movement for change can be built. Without the ability to govern effectively, progressives would be left without a champion, and New York City would be caught in a dangerous political storm.
Andrew Cuomo: The Trump Lite Candidate
In contrast to Mamdani, we have Andrew Cuomo—someone whose ties to Trump are undeniable, despite his denials. Cuomo, while not as overtly right-wing as Trump, would be beholden to the same political forces that have enabled Trump’s rise. His history of political maneuvering and his own ambitions make him a deeply problematic candidate, one whose influence could easily be overshadowed by Trump’s.
Cuomo’s election would be, in many ways, a continuation of Trump’s influence on the city, albeit through a more moderate Republican lens. With Cuomo in office, New York City would find itself caught between the interests of the Trump administration and the ambitions of a man who has already demonstrated a willingness to compromise progressive values for political gain. Cuomo’s administration would likely be marked by an endless battle for political survival, aligning himself with the right-wing forces he’s previously sought to distance himself from, while also attempting to navigate the legacy of the Democratic Party.
For progressives, this represents a dead end. Cuomo would neither have the political will to push for substantive change nor the stability to manage a city as complex as New York. Instead, he would serve as a conduit for Trump’s influence in a way that would stifle any hope for progress.
Curtis Sliwa: The Stopgap Candidate
And so, we come to Curtis Sliwa—the Republican who, in many ways, represents the least-bad option. The paradox here is clear: Sliwa is a Republican, but he’s not that Republican. His relationship with Trump is complicated, to say the least. Trump doesn’t have Sliwa’s loyalty, nor does Sliwa depend on Trump’s endorsement. They tolerate each other, but they’re not allies in any meaningful sense.
For progressives, this might sound like an unlikely and uncomfortable choice. But here’s the thing: Sliwa offers the best chance for stability in a time when the city needs it most. He is the candidate who might be able to maintain some distance from the chaos of the Trump administration while still functioning as a stopgap against further political turmoil.
If Sliwa were to be elected, he would likely have less interference from Trump than either Cuomo or Mamdani. Trump has shown a tendency to leave those who are not his allies but also not his enemies to their own devices. This creates a unique opportunity for New York City to function somewhat independently, without the constant threat of Trump’s meddling.
Moreover, Sliwa could, paradoxically, help New York City in a way that both Cuomo and Mamdani could not. His status as a Republican might make him more palatable to conservative-leaning parts of New York State. If federal funding were threatened or if the city faced challenges with the state government, Sliwa would have a better chance of securing support from red parts of the state—areas that might be unwilling to cooperate with someone like Mamdani, but more likely to support a fellow Republican, even if they don’t fully align with his policies.
The Silver Linings in Sliwa’s Candidacy
It’s not just about what Sliwa might avoid—it’s also about what he could make possible. Despite his status as a Republican, Sliwa could act as a stabilizing force in a city that desperately needs one. His ability to operate independently of Trump’s direct influence could make him an effective stopgap candidate, buying New York City the time it needs to regroup and reorganize politically.
Additionally, as an outsider to the traditional political establishment, Sliwa could be more open to pressure from various movements, including progressive ones. While he may not embrace progressive policies fully, he might be more amenable to negotiating with those who push for change—especially if it means ensuring the stability of the city and its people.
Conclusion: A Pragmatic Progressive Choice
At the end of the day, the 2025 NYC mayoral race is not just about ideology—it’s about survival. For a progressive like myself, the reality is that Sliwa might offer the only realistic path forward in a time of political uncertainty. It’s a difficult pill to swallow, but sometimes, in politics, the best option is the one that keeps the city functioning while leaving room for future progress.
In this election, I’m voting for stability. I’m voting for distance from Trump’s chaos. And, paradoxically, I’m voting for a Republican—because, right now, Sliwa may be New York City’s only chance for some reprieve in these trying times. The choice is not an easy one, but it’s the one that offers the clearest path to keeping the city running while we wait for better options to emerge.