![](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/0aac95a8435010ed02182945e80bb6e9b2-deblasio-jaq.rsquare.w400.jpg\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
\n Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Getty Images\n <\/p>\n
Bill de Blasio<\/a> knows firsthand what the closing weeks of a mayoral race feel like. He is less familiar with a dramatic finish; in 2013 (after a hard-fought Democratic primary) and in 2017, De Blasio trounced his Republican opponents. This year\u2019s frontrunner, the Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani, can\u2019t breathe so easy, even if he does enjoy a hefty lead in the polls against Andrew Cuomo<\/a>, Curtis Sliwa, and scandal-plagued incumbent Eric Adams<\/a> \u2014 not when the Trump administration is throwing its weight around to push Adams and Sliwa out and force a two-man race.<\/p>\n De Blasio endorsed Mamdani earlier this month, and the two have plenty of political common ground, such as a focus on affordability. But de Blasio\u2019s admiration clearly runs deeper than any policy platform. I spoke with him about why he thinks Mamdani is a uniquely talented politician, how the end of the race might play out, and whether it matters that Chuck Schumer still won\u2019t endorse.<\/p>\n The polls have been telling a <\/strong>very consistent story<\/strong><\/a>, with Mamdani getting support in the mid-forties, Cuomo in the mid-twenties, and Curtis Sliwa and Eric Adams well behind those two. What do you think would have to happen for Mamdani to lose at this point?<\/strong> So the first thing I\u2019d say is that the trend line is extremely impressive and encouraging. And then the second piece is the turnout questions, which has become more and more central in the last 10 years. And I think we\u2019ve seen here a shocking disparity between a candidate and a campaigner who has a truly well-defined, massive turnout operation, versus three other campaigns that show no evidence of that, and certainly no evidence of a grassroots organic turnout operation.<\/p>\n Yeah, Mamdani\u2019s volunteers are everywhere.\u00a0 <\/strong> We still don\u2019t know the final candidate lineup. There\u2019s still all sorts of possibilities \u2014 six weeks is forever. One or more candidates might drop out, and of course that will change things. But what that doesn\u2019t change is the way people are running their campaign. There\u2019s really no such thing as six weeks out, a candidate having a conversion experience and suddenly turning into a different or better candidate. If you have not produced a compelling campaign by now, it\u2019s locked in, basically. That\u2019s a reason why Zohran\u2019s team should feel some confidence, but not overconfidence.<\/p>\n And there\u2019s also just external events. Inevitably things happen, and they do frame how people think. There\u2019s been a lot of history of that in New York City. It doesn\u2019t change anything about strategy. Something might happen in the world that affects people\u2019s thinking, and you can\u2019t plan for it. So what you do is continue just the steady growth and continue to build a turnout operation. And then if something really fundamental happens in the world, or in the city, it\u2019s a question of how each candidate quickly and agilely responds to it. And in that kind of scenario, I would give Zohran a much greater likelihood of knowing how to do that, doing it in a way that people felt was real.<\/p>\n One other thing I\u2019d say is that I still expect a huge amount of money to be thrown against him toward the end, and attempts to misrepresent him, which we saw in the last weeks before the primary. I assume it\u2019ll happen again. It wasn\u2019t effective in the primary, but I don\u2019t think that will stop folks with a lot of money from trying. And you just don\u2019t know how that plays out.<\/p>\n I was struck by something you <\/strong>said recently<\/strong><\/a> about Mamdani: that \u201che is more talented in many ways\u201d than you were. This was in the context of him reaching out to skeptical business leaders, which you said he did in a smart way. What in particular impresses you about Mamdani?<\/strong> \u201cDemocratic socialism with a human face,\u201d as <\/strong>you\u2019ve put it<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> He\u2019s also clearly moderating as he approaches the general election. He has backed off on the phrase \u201cglobalize the intifada,\u201d for instance, and has said he would <\/strong>apologize to the NYPD<\/strong><\/a>, for calling them racist in the past, although he hasn\u2019t yet. The relationship between you and the police force was fraught for a time. What do you think of this way he\u2019s handling this?<\/strong> And then you have the unions, and there are five of them. All five are different, and their leaders are different. The newer leaders at the PBA and SBA are different than their predecessors. There\u2019s a common history with the PBA in particular<\/a> of stirring the pot, and often practicing a kind of right-wing populism, but it\u2019s not monolithic.<\/p>\n So there\u2019s no simple way of describing the police worldview. But I think, generally speaking, anybody would want to hear that you care about them, you respect them, that if you had some negative assumptions, you\u2019ve reevaluated those, and you want to make sure that they know that you\u2019re listening to them, that you\u2019re thinking objectively. He\u2019s doing those things in his own way. I think those are the right things to do. It\u2019ll take more, and also it will never be perfect. If an officer happens to have a more reform minded worldview, they\u2019ll give him more of the benefit of the doubt. If an officer happens to be a MAGA person, they\u2019ll give him less benefit of the doubt. That\u2019s just human reality.<\/p>\n But also it\u2019s which leadership he chooses, how he relates to them, and then how he relates to the union leaders. And I had good days and bad days with that. I go back and look at the first months of my administration \u2014 we actually had a chance of having a more productive relationship with the police unions. And the death of Eric Garner<\/a>, obviously, threw everything into a painful, conflictual dynamic. But again, each union is different. There\u2019s new leaders. He has a chance to establish his own cadence and connection. And none of this stuff is preordained.<\/p>\n You endorsed Mamdani in early September. Governor Hochul <\/strong>did a few days ago<\/strong><\/a>, but a bunch of prominent leaders, like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, <\/strong>haven\u2019t yet<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong>
Well, I\u2019m certainly not here to give you doomsday scenarios, but I think I\u2019d flip the equation and say the best way for him to guarantee his victory is to break 50 percent. I think about his trajectory from the primary until now, because the primary is always a measure of just Democratic voters, so it\u2019s a smaller universe, and he ended up low, mid-forties<\/a> there. And then of course with the fuller distribution, even higher<\/a>. But to convert that now to, give or take 45 percent of the overall city electorate \u2014 independents, Republicans, minor parties, everybody \u2014 that\u2019s a major achievement, to basically take his primary performance and now superimpose it on the general election electorate. That\u2019s a lot of movement.<\/p>\n
Right, and that really counts, considering so much of voting is emotional, spontaneous, last minute. Human contact in the final days is just immensely powerful, in terms of actually motivating someone to vote. So I really do believe his current 45 or so in polling probably translates to 50 percent or more in actual vote terms, because of that turnout differential. But obviously he has to execute that. Whether he\u2019s up against one opponent or three opponents, it\u2019s academic if he breaks 50 percent.<\/p>\n
I would say on the broader talent level, he\u2019s just a natural organic communicator. He has a really great ability to keep his message short and clear without dumbing it down. And I\u2019ve noticed even in more spontaneous settings, his brain takes a question and breaks it down to something clear and understandable, but still emotionally meaningful. It\u2019s just who he is. I would dare say I\u2019d give some extra credit to his mom<\/a>, because if you have a mother who explains the world to people in very emotional and visual terms, I\u2019m sure that is a great influence. We\u2019ve all been to movies where a single line or a brief scene can speak volumes. I think he\u2019s organically learned that, and that\u2019s a massive talent. His human ability to connect with people very fluidly \u2014 I have some of that, but I think he has more.<\/p>\n
<\/strong>Yes, exactly. Look, you can drop me into any community in New York City, and I can relate to anyone, but he has a way of doing it that\u2019s particularly engaging. Talent is such an interesting thing. I think of this through a sport, particularly my beloved baseball. Some players show up and they just can do things other people can\u2019t do. It\u2019s just in their DNA, in their bloodstream, in their influences, whatever. This guy can do things most other politicians can\u2019t do.<\/p>\n
<\/strong>I think it\u2019s a good start. I always tell people from my own rich experience that the notion of referring to \u201cthe police\u201d as a totality politically is an inaccurate frame. I always say there\u2019s three pieces. There\u2019s the rank and file, who are, in broad strokes, about half from the city, half from the suburbs, half people of color, half white. They\u2019re very diverse in every sense. They are not politically monolithic. And then you have the leadership, including the leadership that a mayor brings in and elevates, and folks who rise up the ranks, who are often also diverse in their world view. They\u2019re often very intelligent, subtle people who don\u2019t just see the world in black and white terms.<\/p>\n
Well, I don\u2019t know if I\u2019d say a bunch anymore. It\u2019s a pretty small number. Hochul came through, Yvette Clark came through the other day. I think Schumer and Jeffries should endorse him for sure, but they\u2019re in a very unusual position as the two leaders of the party in each chamber nationally, from one borough. When does that happen? But if you put them aside \u2014the DNC is supporting him. So you\u2019ve got Jay Jacobs,<\/a> you\u2019ve got Jeffries, you\u2019ve got Chuck Schumer.<\/p>\n