It is a ritual as old as the subway system itself. Every few years, the city holds its breath while a small group of editors sits in a room on 8th Avenue, deciding who should run the biggest city in America. For decades, the NY Times endorsement mayor pick was considered the "holy grail" of local politics. It was the signal to the Upper West Side and the brownstone Brooklyn crowd that a candidate was safe, smart, and serious.
But honestly? Times have changed.
In the 2021 primary, the Editorial Board went with Kathryn Garcia. She was a "crisis manager" who knew the gears of government. She didn't win. Eric Adams did. This sparked a massive debate among political junkies: does the Times still have the juice? Or are they just talking to an echo chamber while the rest of the city moves on?
To understand why the NY Times endorsement mayor selection matters—or why it might not—you have to look at the math of New York City elections.
📖 Related: Where is the Earthquake in Japan? What Really Happened Today
The Shrinking Power of the Print Endorsement
Endorsements aren't magic spells. They are data points. In a city of over 8 million people, only a fraction actually votes in the primaries. That’s where the "Grey Lady" does her work. The Times reaches the high-propensity voter—the person who never misses an election, reads every policy brief, and cares deeply about things like "municipal bond ratings" and "zoning variances."
When the Times picks a candidate, they aren't just giving a thumbs up. They are providing a massive "get out the vote" (GOTV) operation for free. Suddenly, a candidate who was polling at 5% gets a flood of donations and a wave of volunteers.
Take the 2021 cycle. Kathryn Garcia was barely a blip in the polls before the endorsement. Afterward? She surged. She ended up losing to Eric Adams by the thinnest of margins—less than one percentage point after ranked-choice voting was tallied.
That tells us two things. First, the endorsement still has the power to move tens of thousands of votes. Second, it isn't enough to overcome a candidate with a massive base in the outer boroughs, like Adams had in Brooklyn and the Bronx. The Times represents a specific kind of New Yorker. It's the "professional class." It’s the "informed elite." But the city is a lot bigger than the 1/2/3 train line.
Who actually sits in that room?
The New York Times Editorial Board is separate from the newsroom. This is a crucial distinction that most people get wrong. The reporters covering the Mayor at City Hall have zero say in who the board picks. The board is made up of opinion writers and editors who interview the candidates in what often feels like a high-stakes dissertation defense.
They ask about the weird stuff. They want to know about the 10-year plan for the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). They want to hear about the specific tax breaks for real estate developers. If a candidate fumbles a question about the budget, the board will sniff it out immediately.
When the NY Times Endorsement Mayor Pick Fails
It’s not all wins. Not even close.
Look back at the history. The board has a bit of a "type." They like technocrats. They like people who seem like they could run a Fortune 500 company. They famously backed Christine Quinn in 2013. She was the City Council Speaker, the ultimate insider, and the perceived frontrunner.
She got crushed.
Bill de Blasio came out of nowhere with a "Tale of Two Cities" narrative that made the Times’ endorsement look out of touch. He tapped into a populist anger that the Editorial Board completely missed. This is the recurring criticism of the NY Times endorsement mayor process: it values competence and "pedigree" over the raw, messy pulse of the streets.
- 2005: They backed Bloomberg (He won, but he had billions of dollars).
- 2013: They backed Quinn (She lost).
- 2021: They backed Garcia (She lost).
You see the pattern? In the last two open-seat primaries, the Times failed to pick the winner. This has led to a bit of an identity crisis. If the most influential paper in the world can't sway a local election, what is it actually for?
The "Ranked Choice" Problem
New York's move to Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) changed the game for the NY Times endorsement mayor impact. In the old system, you just needed to be the top choice for a plurality of voters. Now, you need to be the "second choice" for everyone else.
The Times' 2021 endorsement was actually quite nuanced. They endorsed Garcia as #1, but they also spoke highly of Maya Wiley. This split the "progressive/liberal" vote. While those two were being compared and contrasted by Times readers, Eric Adams was solidifying his base as the "law and order" candidate.
Does it help with fundraising?
Absolutely. This is the hidden power of the endorsement.
The moment that editorial goes live on the website, the candidate’s "Donate" button starts smoking. It’s a signal to the donor class that this person is a "viable" investment. Even if the endorsement doesn't flip a voter in Staten Island, it might convince a hedge fund manager in Greenwich or a tech CEO in Chelsea to write a maximum-contribution check.
In a city where TV ads cost millions, that money is the lifeblood of a campaign. So, in a weird way, the NY Times endorsement mayor pick helps a candidate win by giving them the tools to reach the people who don't read the Times.
The "Anti-Endorsement" Strategy
Kinda funny thing happens now—some candidates actually want the Times to hate them.
In a city where there is a growing divide between the "elites" and the "working class," being the "candidate the New York Times hates" can be a badge of honor. Eric Adams played into this perfectly. He often framed himself as a blue-collar guy against the "ivory tower" intellectuals. When the Times picks a candidate, it gives their opponents a very clear target. They can say, "The Times wants a billionaire-friendly technocrat, but I want a mayor for the people."
Why you should still care
Despite all the "death of print" talk, the NY Times endorsement mayor editorial remains the single most important piece of writing in a municipal cycle.
Why? Because of the "Information Gap."
Most New Yorkers are busy. They have jobs, kids, and annoying commutes. They don't have time to research 15 different candidates for Comptroller or Public Advocate. They look for a shortcut. The Times is that shortcut. It’s a brand name. People trust the brand, even if they don't agree with every single op-ed.
When you go into that voting booth and you see a list of names you barely recognize, that "NYT" logo in the back of your brain starts glowing. It's the ultimate "seal of approval" for a certain demographic that shows up to vote every single time.
What to look for in the next cycle
When the next mayoral race kicks off, don't just look at who the Times picks. Look at why.
- The Tone: Is the board frustrated? Are they looking for a "savior" or a "manager"?
- The Issues: Are they focusing on crime, or are they focusing on the "migrant crisis" and housing?
- The Second Choice: Under Ranked Choice Voting, pay attention to who they mention as a "solid alternative."
The Editorial Board often uses these endorsements to move the needle on specific policies. Even if their candidate loses, the winner often adopts the "Times-approved" policies to appease that segment of the electorate.
Actionable Steps for the Informed Voter
If you want to use the NY Times endorsement mayor guide effectively without being "told what to do," here is how you should actually read it:
- Read the Transcripts: The Times often publishes the full transcripts of their interviews with the candidates. Read those instead of the endorsement. You’ll see who can actually answer a question without a script.
- Look for the "But": Every endorsement has a section where the board lists the candidate's flaws. Pay more attention to those flaws than the praise. That’s where the real truth usually hides.
- Cross-Reference: Check the Times' pick against the endorsements from labor unions like 1199SEIU or 32BJ. If the Times and the big unions agree on a candidate, that person is almost certainly going to win. If they disagree, you’ve got a real fight on your hands.
- Ignore the "Electability" Argument: The Times loves to talk about who can win. They are often wrong about that. Focus on who the board says is actually "competent." They are much better at judging IQ than they are at judging political "vibes."
At the end of the day, the NY Times endorsement mayor is just one voice in a very loud city. It carries weight, it carries money, and it carries a certain "prestige." But it doesn't carry the keys to City Hall. Only the voters do that, and they’ve proven lately that they’re more than happy to ignore the paper of record if they feel like the person on the page doesn't understand their life.
Keep an eye on the 2025 cycle. The tension between the "Times crowd" and the "Adams crowd" is only going to get weirder. And honestly, that’s exactly what makes New York politics the best show on earth.
Stay skeptical. Read the fine print. And for heaven's sake, don't just vote for someone because a guy in a suit on 8th Avenue told you to. Use the endorsement as a tool, not a rule.
The next time you see that big headline announcing the NY Times endorsement mayor selection, remember that it's the start of a conversation, not the end of the race. Check the candidate's record on the specific issues that affect your zip code. Look at their donors. Look at who they surround themselves with. The Times can tell you if a candidate is smart, but only you can decide if they're right for your neighborhood.