In recent weeks, a clear and unexpected shift has emerged: Individuals who were once among Andrew Cuomo’s most vocal critics have begun recalibrating their positions—not to offer an explicit endorsement, but to provide strategic support at a pivotal moment. This development underscores a fundamental reality: The stakes in this election transcend personal loyalties and individual preferences. Curtis Sliwa remains a cherished ally and confidant within our community, and his ability to forge genuine connections with Jewish New Yorkers is unquestionable. Yet affection alone cannot substitute for a realistic path to victory. Those who truly understand what is at stake for the future of this city must acknowledge a blunt fact: Andrew Cuomo is the only viable option remaining.
My decision to cast a ballot for Cuomo earlier today was neither impulsive nor sentimental. It was a deliberate calculation grounded in political strategy. If even the smallest possibility exists that Cuomo can secure victory, it is incumbent upon our community to mobilize and maximize that potential.
This election is fundamentally a strategic contest over power, communal security, and the trajectory of Jewish life in New York City—not a referendum on personalities. Curtis Sliwa’s record of engagement with Jewish communities, built over decades, is well established. Zohran Mamdani, in turn, has positioned himself as the articulate and disciplined face of a populist movement intent on transforming the city’s political landscape. Cuomo, despite a complicated and often fraught history with segments of the Orthodox community, brings with him the singular advantage of proven governance capacity and unparalleled political infrastructure. When emotion is stripped away, the numbers present an unambiguous picture: Sliwa lacks a viable path to victory. Cuomo does not.
Sliwa’s enduring friendship is not in question. He has demonstrated unwavering support for Israel, spoken out against antisemitism, and maintained a meaningful presence in neighborhoods where Jewish life thrives—particularly in Queens. But personal affinity and shared values cannot compensate for the absence of a functional political machine capable of winning a citywide election and governing effectively afterward.
Empirical data underscores this point: Recent citywide polling consistently places Sliwa at roughly 12%—well behind both Mamdani and Cuomo—according to multiple reputable survey sources. In this scenario, a vote for Sliwa is not a symbolic act of support; it is a structural advantage for Mamdani, effectively fragmenting the opposition and paving the way for his ascent. In political terms, Sliwa has become a spoiler—a role that, however unintentionally, works against communal interests.
The stakes of a Mamdani victory, when viewed through the lens of historical precedent, extend far beyond electoral rhetoric. History offers a sobering lesson about the consequences of legitimizing movements hostile to Jewish communal interests. The example of Karl Lueger in late 19th-century Vienna remains instructive. Through a calculated blend of populism and antisemitic rhetoric, Lueger normalized what had once been considered fringe discourse. He governed for five consecutive terms in a city with one of the largest Jewish populations in the world—then, much like New York today, a center of Jewish life outside of Israel. Lueger’s political success did not precipitate immediate catastrophe, but it fundamentally altered Vienna’s cultural and political climate. Years later, Adolf Hitler would cite Lueger as proof of how antisemitism could be woven into mainstream politics. The lesson here is neither abstract nor alarmist: Normalization is gradual, but its consequences are enduring.
A Mamdani victory would elevate a political program explicitly critical of Israel, dismissive of Jewish security concerns, and indifferent to the autonomy upon which Orthodox communal life depends. Once entrenched, such a shift would not be easily undone. Political climates do not reverse overnight; they recalibrate over time, often narrowing the margins of influence for vulnerable communities.
Cuomo, with all his complexities and controversies, remains the only candidate capable of countering this trajectory. His candidacy represents the sole credible alternative to Mamdani’s momentum. This is not about personal affinity or shared ideology. It is about the pragmatic preservation of communal leverage in a rapidly shifting political landscape.
The historical record leaves no room for hesitation and demands decisive action. When the Orthodox Jewish community acts with unity and strategic discipline, it shapes outcomes and safeguards its position within the civic fabric of New York. When it fractures, it invites others to determine its fate. Unity at this juncture is not aspirational—it is imperative.
This is not a sentimental appeal but a strategic argument. To forestall a Mamdani victory and preserve Orthodox Jewish political influence in New York City, the course of action is unambiguous: Vote Cuomo.
By Shabsie Saphirstein
