NYC mayoral race: Mamdani, Cuomo and Sliwa spar over housing, Israel-Gaza, and Trump — Who won debate? What polls have to say

In the very first New York City mayoral debate , all three leading candidates took the stage at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan on Thursday, throwing claims, personal attacks, disagreeing fiercely over the Israel-Hamas war, and questioning the rival's credentials.

Andrew Cuomo, Zohran Mamdani, and Curtis Sliwa tangled over housing, grocery bills, Israel and Gaza , and President Donald Trump .

There are several questions that keep coming regarding and here are some of the answers:

On what topic did three candidates discussed?

• Israel and Gaza

The Israel–Gaza conflict dominated the debate, fueling tense exchanges among the candidates. Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani faced sharp questions over his past statements, reiterating his support for Palestinian statehood while condemning Israel’s Gaza offensive as a breach of international law. Former Governor Andrew Cuomo attacked him for refusing to denounce Hamas or the slogan “globalize the intifada.” Mamdani defended it as a call for solidarity, not violence. Meanwhile, Councilwoman Alicia Ramos urged empathy on both sides, cautioning that the discussion risked turning into political theater instead of fostering genuine dialogue for peace, BBC reported.

• Donald Trump

Donald Trump wasn’t on stage but dominated the debate. Curtis Sliwa urged cooperation with Trump for New York’s sake, while Zohran Mamdani vowed to “take on Trump” and resist federal overreach. Andrew Cuomo cast himself as the only candidate experienced enough to handle the former president, warning that electing Mamdani would mean “Mayor Trump.” The exchanges showed how deeply Trump still shapes city politics, forcing each contender to define themselves against his influence — even in a mayoral race far from the White House.

• Affordability Front and Centre

Sky-high rents and grocery prices took centre stage. Sliwa called for filling empty NYCHA apartments , Mamdani proposed free buses and rent freezes, and Cuomo pushed income caps for rent-stabilised tenants. Cuomo accused Mamdani of hypocrisy for living in subsidised housing despite family wealth, while Mamdani fired back: “If you think my rent’s too low, vote for him. If you think yours is too high, vote for me.” Their clash crystallised the affordability crisis — and New Yorkers’ struggle between fairness, pragmatism, and survival in the city.


Who won the first NYC mayoral debate?

After the mayoral debate, all three candidates claimed victory, each framing the night to their advantage.

Cuomo’s campaign emphasized experience and readiness, portraying him as the only candidate capable of tackling public safety, housing, and education from “Day One,” while criticizing Mamdani’s proposals as unrealistic and harmful.

Mamdani’s team countered, highlighting his clear, progressive vision on affordability, rent freezes, free public transit, and universal childcare, painting Cuomo as out-of-touch and mired in past controversies, CBS reported.

??Republican Curtis Sliwa kept it concise, claiming he outperformed Cuomo and positioning himself for a head-to-head with Mamdani. Political analyst J.C. Polanco noted Cuomo’s substance versus Mamdani’s stage presence and oratory, while praising Sliwa’s street-level issue awareness and aggressive debate tactics.

What polls have to say?

A Fox News poll released before the debate showed Zohran Mamdani breaking 50% for the first time, with 52% of likely voters compared to Cuomo’s 28% and Sliwa’s 14%.

Analysts noted Mamdani’s disciplined focus on affordability helped him maintain support, while Cuomo showcased experience but failed to land decisive blows. Veteran strategists praised Mamdani’s generational communication skills and message control, preventing vulnerabilities from being exploited.

Republican Curtis Sliwa also impressed, coming across as serious and well-versed on issues. Overall, the debate reinforced existing polling, with Mamdani holding ground, Cuomo showing knowledge, and Sliwa making a credible case as a Republican contender.