NYC Primary Wrap-Up

Well, it's over, or at least it's the beginning of the end. The final results of the NYC muncipal primaries were released yesterday, and now we know the winners. Here are the primary results for Mayor, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council. (The current Public Advocate easily won back in June.)

Technically none of these "winners" have won anything yet -- they still need to triumph in the General Election in November. However, political reality being what it is, most of the Democratic primary winners in the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn will win in the general as will most of the Republican primary winners in Staten Island. 

A few interesting observations: the Bronx will get its first female Borough President with Vanessa Gibson; former Congressman Vito Fosella, who left office in 2008 after being busted for DWI which lead to revelations that he had a secret second family, won the Staten Island GOP BP primary (the party of family values in all its glory); Brooklyn city councilman Brad Lander won the Democratic Comptroller primary which means that, if Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams (who won the Democratic Mayoral primary) wins in November, all three city-wide elected officials will be from Brooklyn. This will be an historic moment meaning, a real change in the political gravity of this town, since no one from Manhattan (or anywhere else) will hold city-wide office. 

And yes, the big news is that former cop and Brooklyn BP Eric Adams won the mayoral primary by a whisker -- something like 8,000 votes. I'd been pulling for Kathryn Garcia, and she came damn close, but here we are. Now Adams faces Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa in the General Election -- two colorful, outrageous personalities competing to run the country's largest metropolis and police force.

I can't pretend to be too excited about this choice for mayor -- both candidates seem problematic to me for many reasons -- but obviously Adams is vastly preferable to Sliwa. In some ways this mayoral election will be the battle of the tough guys, a brawl of two men who have literally patrolled the streets of this city. In some ways, they have more in common than not. 

New York City is writing its next chapter. 

P.S. Two years ago I was at an event where Eric Adams gave a speech and he "invited" the office to join him "at City Hall when I'm your mayor." Looks like he was on to something. 

George Santos & Lester Chang: Flimflammers Are Why Nepo Babies Thrive

I really need to start an "ahead of his time" label for this blog because, once again, Mr NYC is ahead of his time -- specifically, this time, about nine months. In March, 2022 I wrote a blog post about Mayor Eric Adams and how his nascent mayoralty seemed to be all about flash over substance, about how he had no clear vision or policies for the city, about his associations with questionable characters, and, most of all, just about what a weirdo he is. 

Well, now, Vanity Fair has written an article about his first year in office and concludes much of the same thing as I did. Read it, then read my blog post from nine months earlier, and see if I wasn't ahead of the curve in this assessment of Mayor Adams.

That said, I will give him this -- Mayor Eric Adams is who he says he is, and his resume prior to being mayor was impressive -- more than two decades in the NYPD followed by service as a State Senator and a Brooklyn Borough President. He is, at least in NYC political terms, the real deal, l'article genuine -- even if we don't know where he really lives. To sum up Adams, he's a political heavyweight and a policy lightweight.

Even though there's a stench of dishonesty and sleaze around Eric Adams, he is who he says he is and worked really hard to get where he is -- literally over decades. 

Which, of course, brings us to George Santos, the new Congressman-elect from Northeast Queens (and Nassau County but who cares about that?) who's entire life -- his education, his resume, his finances, his religion, maybe even his sexual orientation, is completely bogus. How a complete charlatan like this could get elected in the New York area is well, if not completely, described by Steve Isreal who used to represent this district in Congress several years ago. His conclusion is that Santos got through due to complete and utter apathy by the NY political class, the media, and voters. This is obvious, not only in the case of Santos, but in the case of a recently elected Brooklyn assemblyman named Lester Chang who, it turns out, doesn't really live in the district. If his opponents and the media had done their homework before the election, they would have exposed all this and the voters would have known that frauds were running to represent them. But they didn't know, and now New York has these twin political messes to deal with. 

And it got me thinking. 

Recently New York magazine published a bunch of articles about "nepo babies" or people who have succeeded, in this case, in showbusiness largely because they have parents who were already in the business -- and had all of the connections and power needed to launch their kids' careers. Nepotism is as old as human history, of course, parents have always wanted to give their kids and family members every advantage to succeed -- power begets power, wealth begets wealth, opportunity begets opportunity. There's a reason why so much of human history has had hereditary monarchies and titles, why the legal concepts of inheritance and primogeniture exist, and so forth -- families want to keep their wealth and power intact for generations to come; they want, in a word, legacy. 

For example, the great director John Huston has been dead for over 35 years but his son, daughter and grandson all have big acting careers. The Huston name is still important in Hollywood today, even decades after the big man's death (and John Huston's father was an actor as well so there you go). 

The triumph of nepotism in America, of course, makes a mockery of the concept of "meritocracy", a cherished American notion that everyone who achieves success did so only through their hard work, and that nothing else matters. This is and always has been BS, of course -- hard work without connections is meaningless. Family support can be vital. But nepotism is powerful not only because powerful, wealthy, and highly-connected people can create great opportunities for their kids. It's also because people who come from such families have what you might call instant credibility, you can do an instant background check on them, you know who they are because you know who their parents and families are. You know the ecosystem, the environment they came out. Nepo babies are a brand, of sorts, a known quantity, and there's an almost instant comfort level with them because you know "their people."

That's why, decade after decade, people named Kennedy and Bush kept getting elected to political office. We know them, even if we don't really like them. 

And that is the huge barrier that people without such connections, without such family power, who are starting out in their careers, face. They're outsiders, unknown, almost bewildering creatures. Such career strivers, such outsiders trying to get inside, are often derisively called "climbers" or "gatecrashers" or "wannabes." They are held suspect until they prove themselves worthy. They have to prove themselves a lot, they have to be the best of the best of the best, they have to smart and crafty as hell, they have to be able to find and exploit every opportunity, they have to work really hard and have a lot of extra special luck to "make it" -- and, as soon as they do, such "self-made" people become "nepo parents" all their own.

George Santos and Lester Chang felt that they needed to lie and cheat in order to thrive. They are blatant climbers but they obviously didn't posses the superior skills, hard work, or clear opportunities to succeed honestly, to succeed on their own -- so they lied and cheated. They're flimflam men, and they are the kinds of people that scare what you might call the Establishment, the gatekeepers, the powers-that-be. The Establishment doesn't want criminals or liars or people they deem unworthy in their midst. So this is why nepotism  and "nepo babies" thrive -- better to go with who you know, better to stay in your comfort zone, better to give opportunities to the people are already "pre-approved." The Establishment doesn't want to let in someone who hasn't, in their view, demonstrated the superior abilities to earn membership in it -- but coming from the right family means you're there already. 

The Establishment doesn't lift the gate to just anyone who doesn't already have family on the other side of it. 

In many ways, I feel sorry for Santos and Chang -- they see what others have, namely money and power, and these guys want it to -- but they have neither the connections nor the skills nor the opportunities to get it on their own, they are unable to do the very hard work to get it, to prove that they're better than the nepo babies around them -- so they lie.

And compared to these guys and any other possible "flimflammers" in our midst, going with a nepo baby is a safe choice. 

The Talented Mr. Adams

If, as predicted, Eric Adams wins the NYC mayoralty tomorrow, it will be the culmination of a lifetime ambition that took this son of Brooklyn from the NYPD, to the State Senate, to the Brooklyn Borough President's office, and now, we presume, to Gracie Mansion. 

And yet, in this long march to the top, the man himself remains elusive, a bit of an enigma, a living question mark. Who is he exactly, what's he all about? He seems to be whatever you want him to be -- or not. 

Whatever he is, whoever he is, without question, Eric Adams is a talented power player.

He has used his knowledge of the city and innate political skills to rise and rise -- and, tomorrow, he will either realize his ultimate goal of becoming the next mayor (and the only second black one in NYC history) or he will be dramatically upset and it will all come to nothing (plus we'll be saddled with the bizarre Curtis Sliwa as mayor, an until-now unthinkable and scary proposition).

Then we'll see just how talented Mr. Adams really is.  

Eric Adams on The New Yorker Radio Hour

Brooklyn Borough President and NYC Mayor-presumptive Eric Adams just did a long interview with David Remnick of The New Yorker on the magazine's radio show/podcast. In this interview, Adams refers to the city as "dysfunctional" and how he plans to make it functional.

It's the kind of high-flying rhetoric, the kind of Ialonecanfixit braggadocio that all aspiring chief executives in government promise when on the cusp of power. They yammer on about how "the system is broken" but some way, some how, with some magical powers that only they possess, some great wisdom and superior skill inherent within their person, are going to change decades, if not centuries, of government "dysfunction" and incompetence and make everything perfect -- or at least what their idea of perfect is.

Here's the dirty little secret: most of the government is functional. It provides more services, does more stuff, than anyone can possibly conceive -- and, like plumbers, does it so well that we don't notice unless there's a problem somewehre. The problem is that governments are big institutions, and all big institutions possess a level of inherent dysfunction, or at least strategic incoherence, because you have literally thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands (like the NYC government) doing myriad things at once. It's impossible just to change of all that, easily, if at all. It's like trying to turn around an aircraft carrier -- but much, much harder.   

So good luck, Mr Adams. Assuming you're elected in November, we'll check in on how "functional" you've made the city in four years. 

Crises? What Crises?

Public service is generally defined as serving in a job, often in government, where your work is to better the lives of the general public. That's generally how public service has been understood throughout American history.

Elected officials, politicians, are two things at once: public servants but also celebrities of a sort -- they need to have a certain charisma, "star power", magnetism of some sort that gets lots and lots of people to vote for them (at least get more votes than their opponents) and often has little to do with their qualifications or competence for the actual work of the job.

Something interesting has happened in last decade or two -- now we have politicians who clearly have no interest in serving the public, who don't care about doing the actual job. They just want to be a celebrity. 

Sarah Palin and then Trump are classic examples. But we have one big one closer to home.

Mayor Eric Adams is the very model of a modern politician -- he doesn't actually care about governing, he's not much interested in policy. He likes to hang out at nightclubs and rant about crime but doesn't seem have any vision, any policies, any ideas about helping the general public.

There are twin crises in NYC today that Mayor Adams seems wholly indifferent to:

1. The fact that, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, generations of Hasidic children are not receiving a proper education or being prepared for adult life, all of which is being partially subsidized by taxpayers. The New York Times published a bombshell investigation about how a huge number of Hasidic children are essentially living in a mini-North Korea. Adams response? It's no big deal. To be fair, this has been a years-long, bipartisan disgrace but this has been fully exposed on Adams watch -- and his response is to do nothing.

2. The odious thing about the conservative political movement is to say that government doesn't work and then, when they get control of the government, make sure it doesn't. There is currently a crises in the staffing of the municipal government because the salaries are too low, there are no work-from-home options, and attrition since COVID began has been awful. Again, Adams doesn't see a problem with this and, in fact, has contributed to the problem -- he wants the city government to lowball salaries to applicants for city jobs and has been totally inflexible on them working from home. 

Ross Barkan, a three-time Mr NYC interviewee, has a great new article about how Mayor Adams doesn't see this as a crises because he doesn't see governing as a priority. The depressing thing is that Adams is not an outlier, not the exception to the rule: he is the rule, he's the standard of today's politician who do nothing policy-wise, claim to have no responsibility for anything, and preen for cameras and social media feeds. 

So if you wonder why problems in today's city, today's country, today's society remain unresolved, this is why.

Adams vs. Sliwa?

Did you know that in less than a month the very fate of NYC is set to be decided?

There's a mayoral race, an extremely consequential mayoral race, going on right now but you'd hardly know it if you look at the news. 

Democrat Eric Adams, the Brooklyn Borough President, is running against Republican Curtis Sliwa, the radio host and founder of the vigilante Guardian Angels. The two of them are barely engaging, or attacking, each other. They're barely campaigning. Because everyone assumes Adams will win (including Adams), he's spending most of his time laying low, running out the clock, and raising money. Sliwa, meanwhile, with little money or support, is prowling around the city trying to win as many voters in person as possible. It's bizarre.

You might say, it's the mayor's race that isn't.

The media is paying it very little attention. There hasn't been a debate yet and there might not even be one since Adams isn't taking public funds for his campaign. Most candidates for high office seek to generate news to win votes. They seem to be doing the opposite. 

I can understand that, after last year's insane presidential election, a calm and low key NYC mayoral election is a welcome reprieve -- but it's a little strange, and more than a little scary, that the press and public seem indifferent to covering the race and the candidates that will guide this city for the next four years. 

And if the next mayor, whoever it is, turns out to be a disaster, we might look back at this time right before the election where the city showed and indifference to its fate -- and came to rue the day.

New York City will survice regardless, but can't we do better and pay a little more attention?

The Making of the Mayor 2021

Mayor De Blasio is less than two months into his second four-year term and already his would-be successors are circling the throne. The mayor is term-limited so, barring a catastrophe, De Blasio will be leaving office at the end of the 2021 and a new mayor will be elected to take his place.

Who will it be?

On the one hand, it's far too early to speculate -- after all, we're still almost three years away from the 2020 presidential election, who's thinking about the 2021 mayoral race? -- but, if you want to be mayor, it's never too early. In fact, as previous mayors and candidates indicate, it takes years to pull together a credible campaign, raise the necessary money, and position oneself to have a legitimate shot. The next mayor is out there, somewhere, planning his or her run.

Here are some of the rumored contenders thus far: 

City Comptroller Scott Stringer (D)

Public Advocate Tish James (D)

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz (D)

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams (D)

Queens Borough President Melinda Katz (D)

City Councilman Eric Adams (R)

Of course, some of them might not run -- or run for other offices (I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the borough presidents go for Public Advocate or Comptroller instead, like Stringer did). Some of them might get lucky and win a congressional seat or get a high-level appointment. Some of them (naturally) might be felled by scandal. And, of course, all of them might get swept away by another Bloomberg-like candidate, a super-rich outsider who essentially outspends and outsells himself/herself to the public (and does the whole "I'm a rich outsider who's beholden to no-one and can fix it" blah blah blah -- it worked out with Mayor Bloomberg but not so much with the current POTUS).

Four years is many eternities in politics so don't be shocked if some (or all) of the above comes true. But I'll be interested, in 2021, after we elect a new mayor, to see which one of these aspirants become part of history -- and who else is destined to be forgotten.

NYC Mayoral Primary Update

As Bill De Blasio's days as mayor come to a close, and as he takes stock of his eight-year reign of the world's greatest city, New Yorkers went to the polls yesterday to nominate the candidates to succeed him (and for all of the other city elected offices as well, excluding three district attorneys). 

Who did they vote for? Look here:

Of course, all of these primary election results are just the raw totals of the in-person votes cast yesterday -- the early and absentee votes remain to the counted, and the process of rank-choice eliminations that will bump some candidates up needs to happen -- so some of the people currently in the lead might still lose once all these other votes are tallied.

That said, there was some big news last night -- Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams took a decisive lead in the Democratic primary showing the formidable power of the black vote, and Brooklyn in general, in NYC politics. If he gets upset by the absentee/ranked-choice votes, it will be either to Maya Wiley or Kathryn Garcia both of whom, until quite recently, barely registered in the polls and media coverage but proved to be great candidates. 

And just to prove that polls and media coverage don't translate into a great candidacy and hard votes, just look at Andrew Yang -- the early "frontrunner" utterly collapsed, coming in 4th place, and has already been eliminated and conceded. It's quite a face-plant to be the person getting all the coverage, big endorsements, and polling love only to wind up losing so badly. It turns out that being totally unqualified and saying dumb things ultimately doesn't sell with voters who care very much about the future of their city. I hope (probably quixotically) that this will spell the end of people like this, these "celebrity" candidates, from running -- at least for NYC mayor.

Also, in the Republican primary, longtime NYC media personality and vigilante (sorry, Guardian Angel) Curtis Sliwa won. I obviously hope he loses the generally election -- badly -- especially since the Democratic candidate will be strong -- but don't count this guy out. He could win. Don't underestimate his appeal Sliwa has been a public figure in this city for a long time, he's a superb media manipulator, he's tireless in getting around town (he literally pounds the pavement, I even blogged about it in 2018), and he's big personality. Don't get me wrong -- I don't want him to win -- but while many in the media and political class might think of him as a joke, we saw what happened five years ago when people thought the same of another certain candidate for high office -- and we reaped the whirlwind. It could happen again -- and it could happen here.

To be continued.  

Mayor-Elect Adams

In 2013 and 2017, I did election night live blogs of the results as they came in. This year events ensued (good ones!) that prevented it. However, the big news is that Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams won the mayoralty and will replace Mayor De Blasio on January 1st, 2022. Above is his victory speech.

As for the outgoing mayor, what's his legacy? Previous Mr NYC multi-interviewee Ross Barkan has a smart, comphrensive look at what Bill DeBlasio did and didn't do as mayor -- and what was his "fault" and what was beyond his control.

NYC moves ever onwards.

New York City's Next Steps

The COVID-19 pandemic has raged for a year. While we're by no means out of the tunnel yet, the light at the end of it is getting brighter. Vaccination rates are soaring and infection rates are dropping (although, here in NYC we've seen some regression in infection rates which will hopefully end soon). But one day, if all goes right, in the next year or so, this thing will be over and we'll all go back to -- well, no ... we won't -- we won't go back to "normal." First, "normal" was never normal to begin with. Second, whatever comes next will be a "new normal", an aftermath, as we deal with the social, economic, political, and human impact fallout of the pandemic.

Here in NYC this is already happening -- we're already thinking about the city's future and the next steps it will be taking to get there.

For many, as this heartrendering article demonstrates in several personal stories, the city will never be the same. There lives have changed and their place in the city has changed, both personally and professionally. Jobs are lost and gone forever, some still have jobs but the nature and demands of them have changed, friends and family members have died, and relationships have been permanently altered, for better or worse. Their NYC is not the old one and never will be again.

Then there's the city's economic future. The pandemic hammered businesses and the tourism industry that the city depends on for tax revenue. The fiscal situation is dire. But two things will improve this -- and soon. First, as more people get vaccinated, more businesses will open up and more tourists will visit and tax collections will increase. Second, the last election yielded a president and a congress that, unusually, actually cares about NYC. Lots of stimulus money is headed our way! So the city's economy will recover but it will take almost five years until the city gets back to the employment and economic level it had before the pandemic. We're working hard to get back simply to where we were.

Finally, there's the matter of who will actually be overseeing the city's recovery from COVID-19. This is a big election year in NYC, with a new mayor, comptroller, several borough presidents, and a city council to be chosen. The class of '21 taking control of NYC will have a big, tough job ahead of it -- sorting out the finances and managing a strained and exhausted government. Much like Michael Bloomberg was elected twenty-years ago on the heels of 9/11, with this first term defined by handling the fallout from it, the new mayor's term will be defined by how the city recovers from the pandemic. There are some good candidates running -- former Housing and Sanitation Commissioners Shaun Donovan and Kathryn Garcia, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, and City Comptroller Scott Stinger. There are also some really lousy ones ...

... and this is where I get scared. Andrew Yang, for reasons that defy logic, is currently leading in the polls and has a good (certainly not bulletproof, but good enough) chance of getting elected mayor. As I've blogged about before, he is totally unqualified to be mayor -- not only has he never served in government, either in elected or appointed office, but he hasn't even voted in past mayoral elections! Unlike Bloomberg, who built a Fortune 500 company, Yang's biggest acoomplishment was running a non-profit. That's it. His policy ideas are shallow and meaningless -- like a $1,000 basic universal income and a casino on Governor's Island, totally unserious proposals. Appparently, his lack of seriousness is what's charming the press into giving him good coverage and getting him ahead in the polls. He plays basketball with the press! He releaeses rap videos! He performs stunts when handing in his petitions! He knows how to play the PR game but HE. IS. NOT. QUALIFIED. TO. BE. MAYOR. I'm scared that this totally unqualified guy will wind up as mayor at a time when we need a very smart, very competent, and very skilled political and governmental operator to help the city recover. We had an unqualified and unserious president for the last four years -- and we saw how that turned out. Just because Yang isn't as personally vile as Trump doesn't mean he'd be a much better as mayor as Trump was as president. 

Please, NYC, choose wisely. The next steps into the future for a better city depends on it!

Future Theories

Who will be the next Mayor of New York City?

When will Broadway theater and the city arts scene be 100% back-in-business?

We'll find out at some point in the relatively near future but, right now, we can only guess. We can only ponder. We're currently in a kind of "silly season", when everything great and horrible seems possible, when there are a multitude of possibilities, when there seem to be many roads that NYC could take. What roads will we take?

We can only theorize. 

Recently I heard Alec Baldwin on his podcast talk with Robert Wankel, the head of the Schubert Organization. Wankel is one of the most powerful figures on the Great White Way, the man who makes many of the shows we love possible. He says that, at the moment, plans are to reopen in December but, obviously, this will depend on "herd immunity", infection rates, etc. that we can only theorize about ... at the moment. What's most interesting to learn from this podcast are some of the statistics that Wankel presents that make you understand just how much COVID-19 has devastated Broadway and the city's arts business. Along with finance and real estate, the arts business is in the top five of the city's economic engines. Did you know that the Times Square area alone is responsible for the employment of 96,000 people? The arts isn't just some sideshow in NYC, some economic add-on -- it's an essential part of the city's economy and identity, it drives tourism, and its recovery is vital to the future of NYC.

Then there's who will be running the city next year.

Right now there's a bunch of candidates running for mayor but Andrew Yang, for reasons that defy logic, is currently leading in the polls and getting all the media attention. He has no experience in government and, based on his public statements, no real understanding of the city, its people, or public policy. Many people, including yours truly, are sounding the alarm -- remember the last time the public bestowed great executive power on an inexperienced but media-savvy neophyte? The good news is that there's still time for another candidate to emerge and, at the moment, it looks like it might be City Comptroller Scott Stringer. He might, just might, overwhelm Yang and win the primary if he's able to make clear how his quiet competence and experience is much better than Yang's empty media spectacle. Stringer has been elected to city-wide office twice before and is well known to the voters. The primary isn't until June. I theorize that either Stringer, or possibly Brooklyn BP Eric Adams, will overwhelm Yang -- or Yang's support will just collapse anyway -- that one of them will be the next mayor (assuming victory in the general election). But if Yang keeps up his momentum, and wins the primary and general election ... then the city will then be in real trouble.

Fingers crossed the former scenario, the first theory prevails. 

This post will be an interesting one to read again a year -- or several from now -- to see if these theories are correct or totally wrong. 

Ghosts of Mayors Past & (Maybe) Future

Right now former NYC Mayor Giuliani is shredding whatever's left of his reputation by acting as Donald Trump's lawyer and apologist for treason. Each week the thrice-divorced so-called tough on crime mayor pops up on TV spouting some new outrageous lie like "Collusion is not a crime!" or whatever.

Rudy's gone from the hero of 9/11, America's Mayor, to the Disgrace of Donald Trump, America's joke. The whole reason Rudy's is doing this is, let's face it, because he's long out of power, long out of relevance, a ghost of the past desperately trying to stay in the spotlight.

But the darkness of the past can't stamp out the lightness of the future. Check out Eric Adams, the Brooklyn BP, who's going to run for mayor in 2021. He's Rudy's opposite in almost every way. He's a ghost of sorts, a potential future that our city might slide into. And he couldn't be more different than the past if he tried.

Interview: Ross Barkan of the Village Voice and the Guardian

Politics in NYC is a complex world. Few report about it so well as Ross Barkan, columnist for the Village Voice and Guardian. Ross is that rare thing in political reporting these days -- a thoughtful, impartial, and honest voice. As NYC gears up for its own elections this fall, Ross was kind enough to give Mr NYC readers his insights about the state of New York politics and the future of this city. You can follow Ross Barkan on Twitter at https://twitter.com/RossBarkan.

Crime and affordability have been the Big Issues in previous NYC elections but this year doesn't seem to have one defining issue. What do you think will be the main issues in this fall's campaign?

Crime is so low right now, but I imagine Nicole Malliotakis, the Republican nominee, and Bo Dietl, the Trump-like independent, will try to make it an issue. To me, that's silly. There are actual problems facing this city. Housing is extremely unaffordable, which has fed our homelessness crisis. Our subway infrastructure is coming apart. Unfortunately, the city has so little say when it comes to transit--the MTA is state-run and effectively controlled by Governor Cuomo--but the mayoral candidates certainly have a right to debate fixes. I hope they do. Housing and transit should be at the forefront of the race. Will they actually be? We'll find out. I hope we stop talking about statues. 

During his first term, Mayor De Blasio was not overwhelming popular and yet he won big in the primary and is favored to win a second term. Does this show the power of "holding your base" in politics or because, despite what the polls show, New Yorkers think he's actually done a good job?

It's an interesting question. De Blasio's 2013 primary win was more dominating than people understand, and helps explain some of his arrogance. In a crowded field of big-time contenders--Christine Quinn initially dominated media coverage, followed by Anthony Weiner--de Blasio was able to hit 40 percent and avoid a runoff, something no one thought was possible before that race began. He won almost every assembly district in the city. He won every borough. He built a coalition of liberal whites, Latinos, and blacks that isn't seen often in city politics. As mayor, he has never had a sky-high approval rating (Bloomberg and Giuliani went north of 70%) or a disastrously low one (Bloomberg sat in the 30's at one point). He's not a major personality, he has an awful relationship with the media, and he doesn't inspire visceral devotion or loyalty. But he has a core following, particularly in nonwhite outer borough neighborhoods. He is the first mayor in two decades to explicitly make it his mission to care about people who are poor and disenfranchised. Does he do enough to help them? It's fair to say he can do much more, but he's tried. Is he too beholden to real estate developers? Sure. Did some of the corruption investigations, even if they didn't lead to indictments, say something about an administration that prioritizes big donor access? Yes. De Blasio also has serious accomplishments as mayor--the universal pre-K program in particular--which voters can respect. He's been blessed with a good economy and a low-crime environment. He's definitely someone who benefits from the way our politics are set up, where Democratic primaries are everything, because his core base of support is so far unshakable. I'm not convinced, however, he couldn't win an election overwhelmingly if turnout increased or we held (as we should) nonpartisan elections open to all voters.

What effect, if any, will the Trump presidency have on this election? Does a President Trump hurt the Republican candidate by motivating Democratic voters or does he actually help her by motivating Republican voters?

Donald Trump is not good for Republicans in New York City. There are a lot of Republicans with intriguing ideas who deserve to be heard, like J.C. Polanco, the Republican candidate for public advocate. But Trump is extremely unpopular in the city and is toxic for the Republican Party here. Malliotakis has a challenge--on one hand, she's worried about losing core Republican support by disavowing Trump because he does have many fans in her home borough, Staten Island. On the other hand, her chances of even coming close to winning are zero if she's successfully branded as a "Trump Republican." (In her defense, she backed Marco Rubio pretty strongly in the primary.) Malliotakis' cause is rather hopeless, truth be told. Joe Lhota got 24% against de Blasio in 2013. Malliotakis can improve on that margin. How much, though, is unclear. This is another argument for nonpartisan elections or a "jungle" primary, where candidates of all parties run together and the top 2 face off in November. Malliotakis, a real conservative on many issues, represents viewpoints that aren't held by a lot of people in the city. 

Assuming all the incumbents are re-elected, who will be the leading candidates for mayor in 2021?

2021 is so far away, and I've learned many times over not to make firm predictions about politics. But you do have a field, at least, that is already coalescing. Comptroller Scott Stringer, who hungers for the office like few others, will run. Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams has said he'll run. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. will probably run. Public Advocate Letitia James may run. You could see the next speaker of the City Council take a shot at it, or even outgoing Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, if she's so inclined. There will probably be other Democrats. Maybe Congressman Hakeem Jeffries. Maybe someone we can't even imagine.

Finally, what do you think most of the media and public are missing or don't fully understand about this year's NYC election?

In terms of issues, I wish there was more focus on public housing. Were NYCHA a standalone city, it would be among the largest in America. In terms of the election, what is the public and media missing or doesn't understand? Maybe that 2017 is a return to normalcy for city politics. You had 20 years of Republican mayors, which meant competitive general elections and primaries where Democrats fought among themselves for the opportunity to take down the Republicans. NYC is a Democratic town and we'll probably look back at that 20 year period as an anomaly. You also had crises that drove Democratic incumbents from office (Abe Beame, David Dinkins.) We're in a period of relative stability. De Blasio, the incumbent, is on firm footing. I don't think it means a decline in civic life if you don't get a feisty 2017 primary and general election. Ed Koch glided through two Democratic primaries and the Republican Party was so dead n 1981 it gave him its ballot line. No one remembers Robert Wagner's first re-election. There's a reason for that. 

Thanks Ross!