New York City voters may be on a different page than the rest of the state.
Despite Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani maintaining a significant advantage in the polls ahead of the NYC mayoral election, one Republican is looking to flip the state red next year.
For example, 60% of registered voters in New York ... either strongly support or somewhat support returning to the pre-2019 bail laws.
RealClearPolitics has Mamdani boasting a 15-point lead average across the last six polls in October. With around 46 points, Mamdani's lead has only widened since July.
In new numbers from the Manhattan Institute, the Democratic socialist and alleged communist maintains that lead over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a former Democrat now representing the Fight and Deliver Party.
Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa is third, 24 points behind Mamdani and nine points behind Cuomo.
At the same time, however, pollsters asked respondents how they would vote if the 2026 N.Y. gubernatorial election were held today.
Shockingly, Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) held a slim margin over Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul. Stefanik's lead was just one point, 43% to 42%, while "someone else" had 9% support, and "not sure" was at 7%.
RELATED: LGBTQ champion Zohran Mamdani faces backlash over photo with 'anti-homosexuality' Ugandan lawmaker
Stefanik's team responded to the news:
"In a heavily Democrat-leaning state, an independent poll that is heavily weighted toward registered Democrat voters shows Republican Elise Stefanik leading Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul in a head-to-head matchup," Stefanik's spokesperson Bernadette Breslin said in a press release.
Breslin said it was the first time in decades that any Republican candidate for governor of New York has polled ahead of a Democrat incumbent.
The remarks continued, "In a decision that she will come to regret, Kathy Hochul lives up to her title as the worst governor in America when she chose to bend the knee and put New Yorkers LAST by desperately endorsing the defund the police, tax-hiking, raging anti-Semite socialist Zohran Mamdani who will destroy New York."
Though rumors have swirled for months that Stefanik intends to run for governor, she has not formally announced her candidacy. Reports indicate that she will announce sometime after the November 4 election.
RELATED: Cuomo narrows gap in new poll
While Mamdani maintains a strong lead in the city, some of his progressive policy positions range from somewhat unpopular to widely unpopular in updated polling.
For example, 60% of registered voters in New York, including 49% of Democrats, either strongly support or somewhat support returning to the pre-2019 bail laws. This pertains to allowing individuals to be "released until trial rather than being held."
Mamdani has said he wants to reduce the jail population, specifically at Rikers Island.
One of Mamdani's biggest promises, free bus services, saw 58% of New York City respondents oppose the idea. This figure included 48% of Democrats. Meanwhile, 42% of Democrats agreed with the idea that eliminating fares would make public transit more affordable and efficient for working New Yorkers while reducing conflicts between riders and operators.
Other topics — like New York's gifted and talented programs, corporate taxation, and fare evasion — were covered in polling conducted with 600 likely voters in the NYC mayoral election and 300 registered voters across New York state between October 22 and 26. The poll was weighted to reflect the electorate.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Freedom of speech on university campuses has collapsed. Left-leaning college administrators, faculty, and students have been silencing conservative voices, and conservative students are increasingly adopting the left’s errant ways. The Trump administration has launched a strong counterattack that also seems poised to suppress speech.
The First Amendment’s free speech guarantees are at the core of our liberties. As Justice Louis Brandeis explained in Whitney v. California(1927), “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
Conservatives debate and debunk bad ideas — they don’t silence those with whom they disagree.
Though set out in a concurring opinion, Justice Brandeis’ counter-speech doctrine has become the bedrock of free speech jurisprudence. In the milestone First Amendment case of United States v. Alvarez (2012), Justice Anthony Kennedy cited Justice Brandeis, opining, “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straight-out lie, the simple truth.”
Many in Gen Z and younger Millennials would beg to differ. To many of these students and recent graduates, particularly — but not only — on the left, offensive speech is violence that should be silenced — and with physical violence, if necessary.
For the last six years, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has surveyed tens of thousands of students at hundreds of American universities to evaluate the status of free speech on campuses. Its most recent survey, in collaboration with pollster College Pulse and RealClearEducation, included 68,510 students at 257 universities.
The results are troubling. Together with other surveys, campus activism, and social media invective, a considerable decline in support for free speech is manifest, particularly among younger Americans on the left.
FIRE’s scores are based on 12 components, including student perceptions of six factors, three areas of campus speech policies, and three types of speech controversies. FIRE generates a blended score on a 100-point scale, which it converts to letter grades. Claremont McKenna College (not affiliated with Claremont Institute) received the highest score, 79.86, and Columbia University’s Barnard College the lowest, 40.74. My alma mater, Columbia College, was next lowest at 42.89.
Just 11 of the 257 schools surveyed received a grade of C or higher; 14 received a C-minus; 63 ranged from D-minus to D-plus; and 168 institutions — nearly two-thirds —received an F. Of the top-10 schools, only Claremont McKenna did better than a C grade, scraping by with a B-minus, though FIRE observed that but for rounding scores, the college would have received a C-plus. Each of the other nine top-ranked schools received a C.
According to FIRE, the lowest-ranked schools are home to restrictive speech policies, threats to student press freedom, speaker cancellations, and the quashing of student protests. Only 36% of students said that their school’s administration protects free speech. To the contrary, the great majority of campuses are inhospitable to faculty and students who oppose diversity, equity, and inclusion, observe religious tenets, are pro-life, favor Israel in its struggle with Hamas, or otherwise fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
The most troubling result of FIRE’s survey and other recent studies is that educators in both K-12 and higher education are indoctrinating students in ideologies that are completely adverse to free speech.
FIRE warned that there has been a “steady erosion of free expression at colleges and universities,” adding that “the atmosphere isn’t just cautious — it’s hostile.” To stop speakers with whom they disagree, at least 71% of students surveyed (a high) support shouting; 54% (a high) endorse blocking other students from attending a speech on campus; and 34% (also a high) support the use of violence at least some of the time.
The FIRE survey found that 76% of students would stop someone from saying that Black Lives Matter is a hate group; 74% would stop a speaker from saying that transgender people have a mental disorder; and 60% would not allow a speaker to say that abortion should be completely illegal. These numbers suggest almost universal support from left-leaning students to bar speakers with whom they disagree, and at least some support from conservatives. American liberals used to champion free speech, which was the message of those angered by Disney’s suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
Our rights are under attack. The remedy for the excesses of the radical left is to restore an understanding of why America is a beacon of liberty — not to adopt the left’s worst impulses.
Smaller majorities, comprised chiefly of conservative students, would bar speakers from advocating that the Catholic Church is a pedophilic institution (62%), that the police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan (62%), or that children should be allowed to transition without parental consent (51%). While I disagree with these perspectives, it is not conservative doctrine to bar speakers who have bad ideas.
Conservatives debate and debunk bad ideas — they don’t silence those with whom they disagree.
A more careful review of Claremont McKenna’s scores and the national data demonstrates the fervor of left-leaning students to suppress speech with which they disagree. Claremont McKenna ranked only 24th for tolerance of conservative speakers and 186th in the closely correlated category of tolerating differences. Overall, most campuses received higher marks for tolerating controversial liberal speakers than for tolerating controversial conservative speakers.
On a positive note, 79% of respondents thought their college protects free speech, and about half would feel comfortable disagreeing with their professors on controversial political topics. However, anecdotal evidence and surveys suggest that conservative students would feel less secure in speaking candidly than liberals.
RELATED: Gavin Newsom’s ‘fascist’ slur echoes in the streets
A decline in support for free speech and an increase in support for violence to suppress opposing views go hand in hand in authoritarian regimes. According to a recent report from Vanderbilt University’s the Future of Free Speech project, over the past decade, the number of countries limiting speech has far outnumbered those expanding it. Of the countries surveyed, the United States had the third-largest decline in support for free speech since the last study was published in 2021.
According to Jacob Mchangama, executive director of the Future of Free Speech, the decline in the U.S. represents fundamental shifts in values within a short period. While older Americans (ages 55 and over) have maintained relatively stable attitudes, showing only single-digit declines in most categories, the steep drops among younger cohorts raise profound questions about the future of free expression in America. College-educated Americans show another surprising shift. This group, traditionally associated with openness to diverse viewpoints, has markedly decreased its support for controversial speech since 2021.
The Free Speech study found that younger Americans are especially hesitant to defend speech that offends minority groups. Only 57% say such speech should be permitted, a result driven by those on the left. Tolerance for religiously offensive speech declined from 71% in 2021 to 57% this year, a result driven by those on the right.
In a recent YouGov poll, 25% of those who are very liberal agreed that violence is acceptable to achieve political goals, as did 17% of liberals, but only 6% of conservatives and 3% of those who are very conservative approved. Eleven percent of adults said that political violence can be justified, while 72% disagreed. By contrast, for those ages 18 to 29, 19% believe violence can be justified, and just 51% disagreed. Ironically, while 65% of all adults believe violence is justified for self-defense, just 60% of those ages 19 to 20 agree. Their views may be associated with sympathy for criminals as perceived victims of systemic oppression.
In April, the nonpartisan Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers University issued a report based on its extensive polling that concluded “widespread justification for lethal violence — including assassination — among younger, highly online, and ideologically left-aligned users.” NCRI reported that these “attitudes are not fringe — they reflect an emergent assassination culture, grounded in far-left authoritarianism and increasingly normalized in digital discourse. Cyber-social platforms — particularly Bluesky — play a strong predictive role in amplifying this culture.”
More than 2,100 students were arrested during campus protests last year. Though demonstrations continue, they have been smaller in 2025 since the Trump administration’s crackdown on universities that have enabled anti-Semitic demonstrations.
The administration is pressuring universities to end anti-Semitism and take down barriers to free speech by revoking visas for foreign students who have endorsed Hamas or used violence to support Palestinian causes, and by suspending funding for leading universities that fail to defend the rights of Jewish students and faculty, including Columbia, Harvard, Brown, UCLA, and the University of Pennsylvania. At least 60 colleges and universities are being investigated by the Department of Education under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for their handling of anti-Semitic discrimination.
The Washington Postrecently reported that the Trump administration is developing a plan that would give an advantage for research grants to schools that pledge to adhere to administration policies on DEI and combating anti-Semitism. According to the Post, universities could be asked to affirm that admissions and hiring decisions are based on merit, that specified factors are taken into account when considering foreign student applications, and that college costs are not out of line with the value students receive.
RELATED: Make college great again: Trump ‘has the spine’ to declare war on woke universities
While a requirement that universities adhere to the law to receive funding is sound, a requirement that they adopt discretionary policies preferred by the administration, or avoid criticizing its objectives, is not. Much as I would likely support the administration’s policies, the time will come when Democrats reclaim the presidency.
I don’t want them to impose a radical left agenda on universities as a condition of funding. Particularly because Democrats would encounter a sympathetic audience, their effectiveness would be far greater than any benefits that the Trump administration might achieve by suppressing dissent.
Numerous educators have been suspended or terminated for blaming Charlie Kirk’s assassination on Kirk or MAGA, or even openly endorsing Kirk’s murder. A Washington Post columnist was fired, Jimmy Kimmel was suspended for four nights, and investigations are proceeding against members of the military and federal agents who posted intemperate thoughts on X and Bluesky.
I have written extensively on loyalty tests, cancel culture, and radical left bias at American universities, as well as the Biden administration’s collaboration with, and coercion of, social media platforms to silence conservative views. I opposed those actions not because of my agreement with those who were censored but rather because I support the First Amendment.
For many years, the rot on American campuses has spread as the radical left has pummeled and marginalized conservative voices. Under intensive indoctrination about safe spaces, intersectionality, and oppressor ideology, too many Americans under 35 have lost track of American exceptionalism and the beauty and meaning of free speech.
Our rights are under attack. The remedy for the excesses of the radical left is to restore an understanding of why America is a beacon of liberty — not to adopt the left’s worst impulses.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published on the American Mind.
Most Americans assume proof of citizenship is required to vote. It isn’t. But thanks to the Trump administration’s new rule, the honor system that governs voter registration may finally be replaced with real safeguards.
At a time when Americans can’t seem to agree on anything — not even how to avoid a government shutdown — one principle still unites the country: Only U.S. citizens should vote in U.S. elections.
By requiring proof of citizenship at the point of registration, the Trump administration is doing what most Americans already assumed was happening.
A new poll from the Center for Excellence in Polling found that 87% of likely voters, including 80% of Democrats, support requiring individuals to prove their citizenship before registering.
The catch? More than 60% of those same voters believe the law already requires it. Nearly 70% of Democrats think citizenship is verified before registration. They’re wrong.
Yes, it’s illegal for noncitizens to register to vote. But the “verification” process amounts to checking a box. Election officials take applicants at their word. The result: a nationwide honor system for one of our most fundamental rights.
And bad actors are exploiting it. A 2024 study estimates that between 10% and 27% of noncitizens living in the United States are registered to vote. Census data suggests that could mean anywhere from 2 million to 5 million noncitizens on the rolls.
Consider Michigan, where a Chinese citizen faces felony charges for illegally voting in the 2024 election. Or Florida, where Russian and Uzbek nationals were arrested for allegedly conspiring to submit 132 fraudulent registration applications.
The problem goes beyond isolated cases. In Iowa, the Des Moines superintendent — earning roughly $286,000 a year — was arrested by ICE for living in the country illegally. He had been registered to vote in Maryland since 2012.
These examples add to a growing list of noncitizens caught on voter rolls in Arizona, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Election fraud isn’t new. After the September 11 attacks, investigators discovered that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote in Virginia or Florida, most likely through routine driver’s license applications.
For decades, we’ve known this vulnerability exists. But only now do we have a serious effort to close it.
President Trump signed an executive order this year requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The Election Assistance Commission has followed up with a proposed rule that would make documentary proof of citizenship mandatory.
RELATED: Trump order leads to investigation of 33 potential incidents of noncitizen voting, AG Paxton says
The Foundation for Government Accountability will be submitting comments in support of this rule before the October 20 deadline, alongside many others calling for stronger election security.
The proposal does more than enforce the law — it meets Americans where they already are. Voters believe citizenship is required to register, and they want it enforced. This rule would finally align government policy with public expectation.
Voting is not a casual privilege. It is a right that belongs exclusively to citizens of the United States. That right is weakened every time the honor system allows a noncitizen to slip through.
By requiring proof of citizenship at the point of registration, the Trump administration is doing what most Americans already assumed was happening: protecting the ballot box for citizens and restoring trust in the democratic process.
America doesn’t have a science problem. It has a trust problem.
The collapse of trust didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened because the people running our institutions — government agencies, public health bureaucracies, and elite media — chose fear over facts, power over principle, and silence over accountability.
Truth alone won’t restore trust. We need courage. We need accountability. And above all, we need to stop pretending that silence keeps the peace.
I’ve spent more than three decades in life sciences, investing in innovation and funding companies that bring real cures to market. Bureaucracy can slow progress. But during COVID-19, the damage went farther. It wasn’t just red tape. It was arrogance, censorship, and the collapse of debate inside institutions once devoted to transparency and truth.
We told Americans to “trust the experts,” then changed the story every few weeks. We locked down playgrounds while allowing political protests. We shut down small businesses while rewarding massive platforms. We punished skepticism, not misinformation. We arrested surfers, fired nurses, and drove policemen and military personnel out of their jobs for refusing a vaccine. Where were the “my body, my choice” voices then?
Now Americans don’t just question mandates — they question everything: the data, the motives, the science itself.
Who can blame them? Childhood vaccination rates are falling because public health failed. An entire generation lost precious developmental time in isolation. Families grieved alone. And the same bureaucrats behind those mandates persuaded us to blame COVID, when in fact it was their decisions that did much of the damage. No one has been questioned. No one has been punished. Not one county health official has been held accountable.
A recent Gallup poll showed trust in institutions like the CDC and FDA has collapsed by more than 30 points in just a few years. That trust won’t be restored by press conferences or new slogans. It will only be restored when real leaders tell the truth about what went wrong and take responsibility to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
Dr. Scott Atlas put it plainly: The lockdowns weren’t the result of the virus. They were the result of decisions — decisions made by people who ignored known data, silenced dissent, and wielded authority like a weapon. And they got it wrong. Pretending otherwise only guarantees the disaster repeats.
So where do we start if we want to rebuild trust?
End the illusion of absolute authority. The CDC, NIH, and FDA must return to their proper role: advisory. They don’t make laws. They don’t issue mandates. They provide information — period.
Impose term limits on public health leadership. No more 30-year bureaucratic dynasties. Power without turnover hardens into ideology.
Ban conflicts of interest. No royalty payments to government scientists from the very companies they regulate. No revolving door between regulators and pharma.
Demand transparency. Every agency meeting, vote, and decision should be public and immediate. If they work for us, we should know what they’re saying.
These aren’t partisan talking points. They’re common-sense reforms. The stakes are too high to shrug and “move on.” Parents who lost a year of their children’s development, the elderly who died alone, the small business owners who lost everything — they deserve accountability. This isn’t about public policy. It’s about principle.
RELATED: No perp walks, no peace
And here’s the deeper truth: Fixing this mess isn’t just government’s job. It’s up to us — the entrepreneurs, innovators, parents, doctors, investors, and voters — to become stewards of truth. Not because we crave power, but because we believe in clarity. Because we still believe in the ideals America was built on.
I came to the United States at 15 after fleeing war in Beirut. I’ve seen what happens when fear and control override freedom and reason. I’ve spent my life betting on better — on ideas, on people, and on this country.
Truth alone won’t restore trust. We need courage. We need accountability. And above all, we need to stop pretending that silence keeps the peace.
It doesn’t. It only postpones the next disaster.
www.theblaze.com