Ex-Governor Switches Back to Eric Adams in New York City Mayor's Race
In an interview, Mr. Paterson sounded skeptical of Mr. Adams's electoral chances after a federal corruption indictment and accusations that he had conspired with the Trump administration to dismiss the charges. But he said the mayor had been there for him when it counted — and he would do the same.
'There are certain times when, you know what, it's a friend, you're not hurting anyone by endorsing him,' Mr. Paterson said. 'He's the candidate who I think, if he did win, would run the city the best.'
He added: 'He almost dropped the phone when I told him that about a week ago.'
Mr. Paterson, the state's first Black governor, could help persuade other Democratic leaders and some voters to give Mr. Adams, the city's second Black mayor, another look. But polls suggest most voters are tuning the mayor out less than three months before Election Day.
The contest is looking increasingly like a two-man rematch between Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee and front-runner, and former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the runner-up in June's primary. Mr. Adams skipped that race and is running as an independent, as is Mr. Cuomo. Curtis Sliwa, the Republican nominee, is currently ahead of Mr. Adams in most polls.
Mr. Adams and Mr. Paterson, who hosts a radio show and works for the casino company Las Vegas Sands, were set to appear together on the steps of City Hall on Wednesday afternoon.
Mr. Paterson's support for Mr. Adams had not been a given. Though he backed the mayor four years ago, Mr. Paterson endorsed Mr. Cuomo, his successor as governor, during the Democratic primary. Just a few weeks ago, Mr. Paterson lent his support to a proposal to consolidate the field of candidates running against Mr. Mamdani: Whoever was polling best in September would stay in the race, while other rivals to Mr. Mamdani would end their campaigns in an effort to stop his rise.
In the interview, Mr. Paterson said he still believed that those opposed to the Democratic nominee should unite behind a single candidate, but that Mr. Adams deserved a shot.
'I think the only way that Mamdani loses is in a one-on-one match,' he said.
Mr. Paterson said that aides to Mr. Cuomo had called his own staff members in recent days to ask why he was switching loyalties. In the interview, he said he had been put off by Mr. Cuomo's initial refusal to take blame for his primary defeat. (Mr. Cuomo later took some responsibility for the loss and is attempting to reboot his campaign.)
A spokesman for Mr. Cuomo declined to comment.
Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Adams have each called on the other to leave the race. Mr. Adams rejected the idea in a radio interview on WABC earlier Wednesday.
'I'm moving straight ahead,' he said. 'The voters will decide who's going to be the next mayor.'
When the host, Sid Rosenberg, asked who would be the next mayor, Mr. Adams responded, 'Eric Adams.'
Mr. Paterson, for his part, dismissed concerns about the former legal case against the mayor, which included charges that he had taken free travel perks in exchange for favors and collected campaign cash from straw donors, suggesting he had trusted the wrong people. He said he thought the mayor had 'recaptured his mojo.'
Mr. Paterson said he found some of Mr. Mamdani's promises to make the city more affordable appealing, but unrealistic.
'He's got a base who's younger and idealistic, and somebody who sounds convincing is going to have to tell them that if he cleaned up a few things, maybe he will be a viable candidate in a few years,' he said. 'But right now, we cannot afford someone coming in talking about free bus rides and having the city run the supermarkets.'
Dana Rubinstein contributed reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
Failed New Mexico candidate gets 80 years for convictions in shootings at officials' homes
A failed political candidate was sentenced to 80 years in federal prison Wednesday for his convictions in a series of drive-by shootings at the homes of state and local lawmakers in Albuquerque in the aftermath of the 2020 election. A jury convicted former Republican candidate Solomon Peña earlier this year of conspiracy, weapons and other charges in the shootings in December 2022 and January 2023 on the homes of four Democratic officials, including the current state House speaker. Prosecutors, who had sought a 90-year sentence, said Peña has shown no remorse and had hoped to cause political change by terrorizing people who held contrary views to him into being too afraid to take part in political life. Peña's lawyers had sought a five-year sentence, saying their client maintains that he is innocent of the charges. They have said Peña was not involved in the shootings and that prosecutors were relying on the testimony of two men who bear responsibility and accepted plea agreements in exchange for leniency. 'Today was a necessary step toward Mr. Peña's continued fight to prove his innocence,' said Nicholas Hart, one of Peña's attorneys. 'He looks forward to the opportunity to appeal, where serious issues about the propriety of this prosecution will be addressed.' The attacks took place as threats and acts of intimidation against election workers and public officials surged across the country after President Donald Trump and his allies called into question the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Prosecutors said Peña resorted to violence in the belief that a 'rigged' election had robbed him of victory in his bid to serve in the state Legislature. The shootings targeted the homes of officials including two county commissioners after their certification of the 2022 election, in which Peña lost by nearly 50 percentage points. No one was injured, but in one case bullets passed through the bedroom of a state senator's 10-year-old daughter. Two other men who had acknowledged helping Peña with the attacks had previously pleaded guilty to federal charges and received yearslong prison sentences.
Wall Street Journal
21 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Chinese Imports Fell During Trump's First Term. It's Happening Again.
President Trump recently delayed for 90 days raising tariffs on China to give the two sides more time to negotiate a trade deal. Where the sides ultimately end up is an open question: The president hasn't said how much more he will impose on China beyond the 30% currently in place if a deal isn't reached. But this much is clear: The U.S.'s reliance on Chinese goods has fallen off since Trump first put tariffs on China in 2018.
New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
Law Firms That Settled With Trump Are Pressed to Help on Trade Deals
Two of the law firms that reached deals with President Trump this year to avoid punitive executive orders were connected in recent months with the Commerce Department about working on trade deals, according to three people briefed on the matter. The firms, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps, were connected to the department by Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, Boris Epshteyn, two of the people said. Mr. Epshteyn, who does not hold a government position, played a direct role in brokering the initial deals between Mr. Trump and the law firms, in which the firms agreed to do pro bono work on causes the president has championed, like helping veterans, military families and first responders. His previously undisclosed efforts connecting the firms with the Commerce Department shows how he is seeking to impose Mr. Trump's expansive view of the deals, including recruiting firms to work for the government in advancing the administration's agenda. After Mr. Epshteyn helped connect the firms with the government in recent months, Kirkland and Ellis went on to work on the trade deals the administration struck with Japan and South Korea, which were announced in July, according to three of the people. It is unclear if Skadden Arps has done work for the administration. Earlier this year, after the law firms struck deals with Mr. Trump, the president said that he had a broader understanding of the terms than the firms had let on, saying the pro bono work included helping the administration on trade deals and could even be applied to representing him in a personal capacity. It's unclear whether Kirkland & Ellis did the work for free or charged the Commerce Department. But the revelation of the firm's work marks the first time that it has been publicly revealed that one of the firms that cut a deal with Mr. Trump is now doing work for the administration. Representatives of Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps did not immediately respond to requests for comment. When asked for comment, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, did not directly address the latest developments. Instead, he said, Mr. Trump 'has radically changed the business of discrimination, including by ending D.E.I. in Big Law.' He added: 'Law firms that have for years propelled one-sided justice by providing pro bono resources to those causes that make our nation more dangerous and less free have started serving their nation.' Benno Kass, the director of public affairs for the Commerce Department, said the agency and the secretary, Howard Lutnick, 'are working with some of America's top law firms and legal minds to cement the truly historic trade deals that President Trump negotiated for the American people.' He did not specify which firms or what work they were doing. Mr. Epshteyn would not provide comment. Nine firms reached deals with Mr. Trump to head off executive orders. In total, the firms pledged nearly a billion dollars in pro bono legal work. At least some of the other firms are said to have been connected with the administration to do work for the government, but it's unclear which firms or what issues they were discussing working on. None of the firms have acknowledged any wrongdoing. They were targeted with punitive executive orders or implicit threats for representing or aiding Mr. Trump's political foes or employing people he sees as having used the legal system to come after him. The deals have been criticized by many in the legal community as unconstitutional and undemocratic, and have led to splits inside some of the firms about the wisdom of agreeing to terms with the White House.
