NYC Mayor
1
Rank First
Zellnor Myrie
2
Rank Second
Brad Lander
3
Rank Third
Adrienne Adams
4
Rank Fourth
Whitney Tilson
5
Rank Fifth
Zohran Mamdani
New York’s mayor determines the direction of the city and whether the gears of government work: that trash gets picked up, that crimes are stopped or solved, that our kids are educated. After four years of chaos and corruption—and against the backdrop of turmoil in Washington—New Yorkers are looking for steady leadership. But after decades of being stuck, as rents have gone up and quality of life has gone down, we also need vision. We need transformative change for the city and its politics.
Nine candidates have staged serious campaigns for mayor, with some emphasizing steadiness while others lean into transformation—varying, too, in their governing experience and in the sophistication of their policy proposals.
Two candidates have risen to the top of the pack: Ex-Governor Andrew Cuomo, who led the state for over ten years before resigning in the wake of sexual misconduct accusations, has been steady at about 35% support. Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist Assemblymember, has energized younger voters in a surge to 20% first-place support.
Fighting to enter the top tier are three candidates hovering in the low double digits, leaning on their citywide governing bona fides: City Comptroller Brad Lander, former Comptroller Scott Stringer, and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams. State Senator Zellnor Myrie and businessman Whitney Tilson made the cut for the second “leading contenders” debate, with big ideas capturing niche attention without fully breaking through. State Senator Jessica Ramos and ex-Assemblyman Michael Blake did not earn public matching funds (which come from collecting many donations from grassroots supporters) or make the second debate cut, and are unlikely to take off without those resources.
Ranked choice voting means the election will be won by whoever can get to 50% first—after low finishers are knocked out and their ballots are reallocated to their voters’ subsequent choices—and it means voters can act with nuance. Our ballots can be expressive, supporting candidates with the best ideas regardless of how well they’re polling; while also being strategic, picking the best candidates among those most likely to win.
That dual approach dictates these recommendations.
1. While not a front-runner, Zellnor Myrie has put forth bold, ambitious, and data-driven policies on housing, the streetscape, and climate—demonstrating what true transformative change for the city would look like, and earning him the top ranking on this voter guide.
2. Brad Lander is a strong second choice, bringing serious vision and stewardship to the race. Not quite as ambitious as Myrie, Lander is better positioned to both win the mayoralty and to execute on his agenda from day one.
3. Adrienne Adams has already delivered real results for the city. While she is lighter on policy plans than others in the field, she is well-equipped to build on the successes she has led to fruition—and current polling shows she has room to grow.
4. It is highly unlikely that ballots highly ranking Lander or Adams will later be reallocated to Whitney Tilson, but he should be ranked. Including him shows that New Yorkers agree that big budgets should be matched by big results, and that addressing the housing crisis requires unlocking abundant supply.
5. If the race this year comes down to the current frontrunners, neither choice is ideal. However, a choice must be made, and Zohran Mamdani is more likely to prioritize the central crises facing New Yorkers and to be responsive to political pressure to pursue the best policy solutions.
In 2021, nearly 140,000 New Yorkers voted in the Democratic mayoral primary but did not rank either Eric Adams or Kathryn Garcia anywhere on their ballot—that means they effectively sat out the final runoff between the top two finishers. New Yorkers should not make that mistake again. Details about each recommended candidate, and analyses of those not ranked, are below.
Zellnor Myrie
A son of immigrants and product of New York City public schools, Zellnor Myrie speaks compellingly about the opportunities the city once offered working families—and the threat posed by rising unaffordability. That perspective has shaped his career in the State Senate, where he has focused on reforming systems that exclude and limit opportunity. His legislation has codified protections against voter suppression, expanded opportunities for New Yorkers with prior convictions, and challenged the gun industry in service of public safety.
As a mayoral candidate, Myrie has turned his attention to another exclusionary system: housing policies that constrain supply and drive up rents. While Myrie’s previous housing work focused on tenant protections, his campaign has emphasized expanding supply. With a target of building and preserving one million homes over the next decade, his housing plan is the most ambitious in the race. It includes rezonings, the creation of new neighborhoods, and regulatory reforms like expanding single-staircase buildings that allow more homes to be built affordably—demonstrating a clear understanding of how streamlined government processes can unleash private sector growth.
Myrie also understands where government intervention is needed to drive growth. He calls for universal after-school programs, expanding bus rapid transit, and holding polluters financially accountable. These proposals reflect a broader approach—targeted deregulation where rules obstruct progress, and strategic public investment where markets fall short.
It’s easy to imagine a Mayor Myrie working productively with the City Council to push forward bold, evidence-driven policy. Less clear is Myrie’s readiness to oversee a city workforce of 280,000 and budget of over $100B; his lack of executive experience may be one reason his campaign has struggled to take off despite an early entrance in the race.
Still, in a field full of conventional candidates, Myrie is offering something different: an ambitious, pro-growth governing vision combined with deep policy chops. He’s earned the top spot on the mayoral ballot.
Brad Lander
Brad Lander has long navigated two identities: a fighter for progressive values, always ready to jump into the arena; and a competent manager, steady and pragmatic. This mix of bold idealism and stable stewardship can be awkward to communicate on the campaign trail, but it is a combination that would make Lander an effective mayor.
Lander has used his tenure as Comptroller both to fight for progress and steady the ship. He exposed mismanagement in the Adams administration, led litigation efforts when congestion pricing was paused, and pressured Mayor Adams to sue the federal government when FEMA took funds from the city’s accounts. At the same time, he used the tools of his office to drive forward-looking investments, scaling up rooftop solar and directing pension funds toward climate-aligned infrastructure.
Lander speaks with moral clarity about a New York that welcomes those fleeing persecution, and his housing vision has evolved to match the scale of the crisis. His campaign’s plan to build 500,000 homes over the next decade reflects that shift: it emphasizes affordability and building buy-in via community engagement, drawing on his experience leading an affordable housing nonprofit and advancing the Gowanus rezoning while in the Council—but also proposes declaring a state of emergency to streamline rezonings and build on public land.
Lander acknowledges that the status quo isn’t working. However, some of his ideas—like calling for a state of emergency—are superficial acts rather than long-term solutions. More seriously, Lander plans to take on bad bureaucracy that gets in the way of achieving results in a broader agenda he calls “a better-run city”: ambitious proposals to fix contracting, improve transit service delivery, attract and retain a world-class city workforce, and more. It’s a platform grounded not just in values, but in results.
Lander’s focus on outcomes—and his track record of delivering them—earn him a strong recommendation and a high placement on the mayoral ballot.
Adrienne Adams
Adrienne Adams brings something few others in the mayoral field can: leadership experience from the other side of City Hall. As Speaker of the City Council, she has served as both a check on the mayor and a consensus-builder within a sometimes unruly chamber—earning a reputation as a steady hand and a unifier.
Her leadership was instrumental in securing passage of the City of Yes zoning reforms, which legalized a little more housing in every neighborhood to start addressing the city’s housing shortage. Despite initial resistance from members across the chamber, Adams prioritized the package and negotiated to secure the votes needed to pass it. That pragmatism is a hallmark of her approach—though some argue it came at the cost of ambition, pointing to carveouts and compromises that weakened the final product. (Similarly, public transit and public space champions lament that she hasn’t been more visionary on remaking the streetscape.)
Her housing platform rightly identifies the need for 500,000 new homes—nearly an order of magnitude more than what the zoning text amendment will deliver. But, perhaps owing to her late entry into the race, her plan is light on implementation details. Across the board, Adams emphasizes personnel over policy specifics; drawing on her experience coaching executives, she focuses on assembling the right team to shape policy, rather than outlining a bold vision herself.
But that emphasis may be well-placed. In a role as complex as the mayoralty, the ability to inspire, persuade, and collaborate with colleagues matters as much as any policy blueprint. Adams has consistently demonstrated those skills—she can lead, build consensus, and get things done. In polling, she appears to have a higher ceiling of support than Lander. Her record, and her policy and electoral upside potential, earn her a place on the ballot.
Whitney Tilson
An outsider to the political scene, investor Whitney Tilson prides himself on a no-BS approach; as he said in his launch announcement, he “doesn’t need the job and isn’t beholden to anyone,” so he is “willing to speak hard truths.”
Some of these truths should be acknowledged. He highlights New York City’s record-low apartment vacancy rates and champions zoning reform to unlock housing at scale. Perhaps the only candidate who commutes by bike, he brings personal experience, a data-driven perspective, and an understanding of other global cities’ successes to street safety. He also rightfully emphasizes outcomes over process; for example, he notes that New York City spends twice the national average on schools to achieve only middling results.
Tilson’s policy prescriptions are, by-and-large, detailed and pragmatic—but his approach to politics is knee-jerk ideological. He fearmongers about Zohran Mamdani and “socialists at the gate.” Tilson’s eagerness to punch left misses the fact that progress at the city level requires cooperation across left and center-left divides. (Indeed, the most ambitious housing plan New York City has passed recently, the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, got over the finish line thanks to members of the Progressive Caucus in the City Council.) In taking this reductive approach, Tilson alienates many of the legislators and rank-and-file New Yorkers he’d need on board to execute his ambitious agenda.
Tilson has among the lowest polling numbers, but his ideas—particularly on housing and government delivery—deserve further consideration.
Zohran Mamdani
Completing a ballot strategically requires including one of the candidates likely to make it to the final round of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) tabulations. In this case, that likely means choosing between Cuomo and Mamdani. Not ranking them is equivalent to sitting out a runoff election between the top two finishers—sensible only if one truly has no preference between them. This guide gives Mamdani the fifth spot not as a ringing endorsement, but as the better of two imperfect options.
Mamdani’s joyful, energetic campaign has enthralled a generation of New Yorkers and catapulted him to the top tier of candidates. His slogans—“freeze the rent,” “fast, free buses”—are clear, simple, and appealing to a city hit hard by rising costs. Mamdani is charismatically leading a movement, a talent that could translate to leadership of the city at large.
But while Mamdani is right to point to affordability as the critical crisis facing New Yorkers—and the role that the government can play in solving it—his policy prescriptions often miss the mark. Most seriously, his housing plan cannot solve our affordability problems. A rent freeze for rent stabilized tenants may be a short-term balm, but it is not sustainable—and it does nothing for tenants in the rest of the city’s apartments. His proposal to invest $70 billion in 200,000 new rent-stabilized units is financially untenable. It will not happen, and it is also ideologically rigid—minimizing market-rate development that New York can pursue, and which would much more broadly address supply shortages and increase affordability for everyone.
More broadly, while Mamdani frequently pairs service delivery and subsidy in his policy proposals, his emphasis falls squarely on the latter. He decries red tape hampering small business owners, then proposes fee discounts and a liaison to help them navigate the red tape—instead of removing the red tape altogether. He talks about “fast, free buses,” but is far more interested in using political capital to make them free rather than to increase speeds and service quality. Mamdani is properly diagnosing the problems—but he’s deprioritizing the best solutions.
Still, Mamdani is open to ideas that challenge his worldview and is conversant in policy details, indicating an adaptability he will need to be successful. For example, on housing, he comfortably transitions from his more accessible “freeze the rent” platform to wonky discussions around reforming single-stair building codes that allow more homes to be built more affordably—however, he does not commit to going beyond what is currently allowed in order to actually increase housing supply.
In this moment, New York needs big ideas—but those big ideas should offer the right answers to our problems, and they should be ideas that can become reality. Mamdani’s ideas are far from realistic. But, while his primary rival is calcified in his worldview and offering more of the same kind of politics that led to our current crises, Mamdani has the potential to grow. Ultimately, it is clear that Mamdani appreciates the scale of New York’s challenges and wants to use the power of the office to benefit all New Yorkers—not just himself.
Who We Didn't Rank
Andrew Cuomo
Former governor Andrew Cuomo has been leading in the polls since his formal entry into the race, and he is considered by many to be a near-lock to win the Democratic nomination. Talking to voters who are planning to vote for him, the reasons are straightforward: his decade as governor is remembered with fondness, as Cuomo spent most of those years appearing solidly in control of what had previously been an ungovernable state capital. Cuomo delivered budgets on time, signed into law many groundbreaking bills, and oversaw pre-pandemic years when New York felt more affordable, safer, and more vibrant.
However, a closer review of his record and disposition suggest that he is not well-positioned to deliver on the promises of that fond recollection—and that New Yorkers hoping for a rejuvenation of the city’s fortunes should look elsewhere in completing their ranked choice ballot. He did not address the housing shortage as governor and does not appear committed to solving it now; his proposals set a headline goal of 500,000 units but without serious engagement with how to get there. On transit, Cuomo oversaw the Summer of Hell, deflected blame to Mayor Bill de Blasio, then ran Andy Byford out of town. Cuomo signed congestion pricing into law but distanced himself when the program appeared unpopular before its launch.
Cuomo helped prop up Republican control of the State Senate even though Democrats held a majority of seats; landmark bills on reproductive freedom, climate emissions, and voting rights only passed after that split control ended. Helping Republicans keep control undermined the will of the people, an undemocratic outcome consistent with other Cuomo actions—from weakening an ethics commission to the pattern of harassment requiring his resignation. Now, he is avoiding the press, threatening his critics and accusers with legal action, and missing out on matching funds due to illegal coordination with his Super PAC.
The ex-governor has a reputation for effectiveness. In some cases, such as same-sex marriage and large-scale infrastructure projects, it is earned. In others, like Covid management, it seems more superficial than real. Ultimately, it is misguided to entrust the future of New York City to the ex-governor in the belief that “he is a bully, but he will be a bully for us.” It is far more likely he will be a bully on behalf of his primary career-long constituent—himself.
Scott Stringer
Stringer is a competent manager who understands the challenges the city is facing; however, his policy vision is too backward-looking to meet this moment. For example, his housing plan promises 20,000 units when 25 times as many are needed. If looking for a good manager with legislative and citywide elected experience, voters should choose Brad Lander instead.
Michael Blake
Ex-assemblymember Michael Blake is a perennial candidate—for mayor, for congress, for public advocate, for DNC chair, and, successfully, for the state legislature. He is an energetic public servant and compelling public speaker, but he is not offering a robust policy approach to this race. He has no specific plan around housing—New York’s greatest challenge—and has been one of the only primary candidates to want to weaken congestion pricing. Given his low polling and partial vision for an administration, he does not merit ranking in this election.
Jessica Ramos
Ramos has been an effective state legislator since her 2018 victory as one of the challengers to Democratic state senators who caucused with Republicans (with the support of ex-governor Andrew Cuomo). She has been particularly impactful on behalf of labor. However, she has not gained traction in the mayor’s race, with her slow start preventing her from earning her a spot on the Working Families Party's initial slate. While other low-polling candidates are worth ranking, Ramos has not offered a policy vision fully suited to the challenges of affordability, quality of life, and safety that New York is facing.