Why Eric Adams Must Step Aside — Before He Hands NYC to Zohran Mamdani

In the high-stakes chessboard of New York City politics, timing is everything. At this critical juncture in the 2025 mayoral race, Mayor Eric Adams faces a political reality so stark, so unambiguous, that to ignore it is to risk reshaping the city’s future in precisely the wrong way. The numbers are in, the polls are unyielding, and the narrative has hardened: Adams is dead last. Not trailing by a narrow, surmountable margin — but staring down a chasm so wide that only divine intervention could plausibly save his candidacy. And yet, despite mounting evidence that his continued presence in the race only benefits his most radical opponent, the Mayor appears determined to stay the course.

That decision — driven, it seems, by stubborn pride rather than strategic thinking — may well deliver the keys to City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, a far-left figure whose brand of politics is explicitly hostile to the city’s business community, corrosively socialist in its economic prescriptions, and deeply antagonistic toward Israel and the Jewish people. For Adams, the choice should be clear: step aside now, before the damage becomes irreversible.

No serious political observer disputes Adams’s dismal standing in the polls. Once buoyed by his identity as a former NYPD captain and his promises to restore law and order, the Mayor’s approval ratings have plummeted under the weight of unmet expectations, stubborn crime rates, and a series of corruption scandals that have sapped public trust. Even among Democratic primary voters — traditionally his most natural constituency — Adams’s support has cratered.

Compounding his woes is the fact that the city’s Campaign Finance Board has declined to provide him with matching funds, a critical financial lifeline in New York City elections. Without those public dollars, Adams’s campaign war chest is dwarfed by that of his competitors, leaving him unable to saturate the airwaves or mount the kind of robust ground operation needed to change minds in the final months of the race.

In politics, momentum matters — and Adams has none. Worse, his presence on the ballot serves only to fracture the anti-Mamdani vote, splintering the coalition that might otherwise rally behind a more viable moderate or centrist candidate.

Zohran Mamdani is no garden-variety progressive. He is a politician whose ideological orientation aligns with the furthest leftward flank of the Democratic Party, steeped in economic doctrines that would make New York City inhospitable to the investment, entrepreneurship, and private-sector vitality that keep its economy humming.

More alarmingly, Mamdani has made his anti-Israel positions a defining feature of his political persona, aligning himself with movements and rhetoric that alienate not just the city’s half-million Jewish residents but also a wide swath of New Yorkers who reject antisemitism in all its forms. His public statements and policy priorities reveal a willingness to normalize hostility toward the Jewish state, rhetoric that inevitably spills over into the normalization of hostility toward Jews themselves.

The combination of economic radicalism and anti-Israel posturing is more than a niche concern; it is a recipe for civic division. It risks driving away the very corporate and philanthropic actors whose investments sustain New York’s infrastructure, cultural institutions, and jobs base. In a city where business confidence is already fragile, Mamdani’s ascendance could catalyze an exodus of talent and capital at precisely the moment the city can least afford it.

Herein lies the irony — and the danger. By staying in the race despite his vanishingly slim prospects, Adams is functioning as an unwitting ally to Mamdani. Every vote siphoned away from a viable centrist or center-left challenger becomes, in effect, a gift to the socialist candidate.

This is not conjecture; it is arithmetic. In a multi-candidate field, the winner can emerge with a plurality rather than a majority. That means that Mamdani could capture City Hall not because a majority of New Yorkers endorse his vision, but because the opposition was too fragmented to stop him. Adams’s insistence on clinging to his candidacy all but guarantees this outcome.

If Adams’s tenure had been marked by unmistakable progress on public safety — the linchpin of his original campaign — he might have a defensible case for a second term. Instead, New Yorkers have watched as crime rates remain stubbornly high in key categories, eroding the sense of safety and stability that once made the city a magnet for residents and tourists alike.

The perception — and reality — of unsafe streets has economic consequences. Businesses are reluctant to expand in neighborhoods plagued by lawlessness. Families weigh the risk of sending children to schools near areas where violent incidents remain common. Tourism, a vital pillar of the city’s economy, falters when visitors perceive that the streets are no longer secure. Adams promised to reverse these trends; he has not delivered.

Then there are the corruption scandals. While the details vary from allegation to allegation, the cumulative effect is toxic: a perception of an administration tainted by ethical lapses, favoritism, and a troubling coziness with donors. Each revelation chips away at the Mayor’s credibility, making it harder for him to present himself as a trustworthy steward of the public’s business.

Political campaigns, at their core, are supposed to be about the people — their needs, their safety, their prosperity. Yet Adams’s continued candidacy increasingly appears to be about satisfying a personal need: the preservation of ego.

It is an understandable impulse; few politicians willingly relinquish the power and platform of their office. But there is a moment when leadership demands the humility to step aside for the greater good. That moment is now.

By exiting the race, Adams would clear the way for a competitive, unified challenge to Mamdani’s insurgent campaign. He would give New Yorkers a real choice between a stable, economically viable path forward and a plunge into the untested and dangerous waters of ideological extremism.

For all its cultural cachet and political diversity, New York City is, at bottom, an economic engine. It thrives on the interplay between finance, real estate, media, technology, and an array of entrepreneurial ventures. This ecosystem requires a municipal government that understands, values, and supports business investment.

Mamdani’s platform, as articulated in public statements and legislative initiatives, signals precisely the opposite. Higher taxes on corporations and high earners, aggressive rent control expansions, punitive regulation of real estate development, and antagonism toward the financial sector would send a clear message: the business community is not welcome here.

Such policies do not merely inconvenience the wealthy; they ripple outward, constricting job creation, depressing tax revenues, and undermining the city’s capacity to fund essential services. The loss of corporate philanthropy — much of which supports the city’s arts, education, and social service infrastructure — would deepen the damage.

The city’s Jewish community, meanwhile, would face the prospect of a mayor whose rhetoric and alliances embolden antisemitic actors. For a metropolis that has long prided itself on being a safe haven for Jews from around the world, that would represent a profound betrayal of its own history and values.

If Adams truly cares about the city he governs, he will recognize that the most valuable contribution he can make at this stage is not to soldier on in a doomed campaign, but to step aside and endorse a candidate capable of uniting the anti-Mamdani coalition. Doing so would require personal sacrifice and political humility — qualities often in short supply, but indispensable in moments of civic crisis.

His exit would instantly alter the dynamics of the race. Freed from the distraction of his struggling campaign, moderate and centrist forces could consolidate around a single, competitive alternative. Donors who have withheld support out of fear of a split vote could reengage. Voters disillusioned with Adams’s performance could channel their dissatisfaction into a constructive choice rather than a protest ballot.

In short, stepping aside could transform Adams from a lame-duck incumbent into a kingmaker — or, more accurately, a city-saver.

Elections are inflection points. The 2025 mayoral race is not merely about personalities or partisan positioning; it is about the trajectory of the nation’s largest city for years, perhaps decades, to come.

If Mamdani wins, New York City could find itself saddled with policies that erode its tax base, alienate its business partners, and deepen social divisions along ethnic, religious, and ideological lines. Rebuilding from such damage would be a generational project.

If Adams withdraws now, he can help prevent that outcome. If he does not, history may record his stubbornness as the deciding factor that handed the city to its most radical and divisive leader in modern memory.

In the end, the choice before Eric Adams is brutally simple. He can continue his quixotic bid for reelection, burnishing his pride but courting near-certain defeat — and in so doing, clear the path for Zohran Mamdani’s radical ascent. Or he can acknowledge the reality of his standing, put the city’s interests above his own ambition, and step aside in time to give New Yorkers a fighting chance at a pragmatic, unifying future.

New York deserves the latter. The question is whether Adams, in this decisive hour, will have the vision — and the humility — to deliver it.