“Curtis Sliwa looks very mayoral tonight.” That’s what the Republican candidate for New York City mayor, Mr. Sliwa, declared as his potential top accomplishment during the opening of Thursday night’s general election debate.
While his response wasn’t a direct answer, it highlighted a crucial truth: a candidate’s appearance significantly sways voters. This explains the meticulous tie choices of his rivals, Andrew Cuomo and Zohran Mamdani. Interestingly, Mr. Sliwa’s own light blue tie seemed to disappear into the backdrop – perhaps a deliberate choice, especially since he opted not to wear his iconic red beret on stage.
Indeed, the sartorial choices of Mr. Cuomo and Mr. Mamdani brilliantly encapsulated the stark differences in their campaigns. It was a visual metaphor: platform versus platform, the insurgent challenging the establishment, essentially, ‘tie versus tie.’
In an era where neckties are increasingly a rare sight, especially for men, their selection becomes a profoundly symbolic act.
Consider Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent and embodying the quintessential New York establishment figure. His attire—a meticulously tailored blue-gray suit paired with a regal purple tie in a prominent Windsor knot, complemented by a spread-collar shirt—screamed corporate power and executive presence.
This particular tie, with its commanding knot, has long been a visual shorthand for power, resolve, affluence, and accomplishment. It’s the preferred look of industry titans, empire builders, and much of the previous presidential administration. It sent a clear message: ‘I belong among the elite, and I can hold my own with any power broker.’
Contrast this with Mr. Mamdani, who sported one of his favored three ties for major public events: a sleek black tie featuring subtle diagonal stripes, fastened in a modest, slightly off-center knot. This was the same tie seen during a recent town hall with Bernie Sanders and in a newspaper portrait; his other two go-to ties include a striking red one (worn for the primary debate and on a popular late-night show) and a polka-dotted option. His choice was paired with a black suit, notably less structured than Cuomo’s.
This tie conveyed a nuanced message: ‘I acknowledge the traditional establishment and respect certain conventions, but I represent a new generation, and I will forge my own path.’
It subtly suggested: ‘I value my appearance, but within reason, and I understand the financial realities many voters face.’ This aesthetic perfectly mirrored the delicate balance between tradition and rebellion that Mr. Mamdani has skillfully maintained throughout his campaign, largely through his carefully crafted public image.
This visual strategy extended to Mr. Mamdani’s signature silver rings and the subtle string bracelet emerging from his classic white shirt cuff. These stood in sharp contrast to the substantial watch Mr. Cuomo displayed on his right wrist, famously a luxurious Breguet Marine 5817, a gift from his father, often seen during his pandemic press briefings.
Whether it was Mamdani’s understated jewelry or Cuomo’s prominent timepiece, these accessories were impossible to ignore as both men passionately emphasized their arguments and divergent philosophies.
And that was precisely the intention. While these ties, watches, and rings might seem like mere adornments, and a mayor’s words and actions should ultimately be paramount, these subtle visual cues, whether observed during the entire debate or just in brief clips, powerfully and subconsciously shaped public perception, making the candidates’ distinct positions instantly recognizable—exactly as planned.