Age Before Accuracy: Adams Campaign Stumbles on Mayor's Birthday While Taking Aim at Mamdani

In a head-scratching moment for New York City politics, Mayor Eric Adams' re-election campaign found itself in an awkward spotlight after misstating the mayor's own age. The gaffe occurred not in a casual conversation, but in an official statement designed to criticize his progressive challenger, Zohran Mamdani.

The ironic blunder quickly became fodder for political observers, highlighting the pitfalls of campaign messaging and the importance of basic fact-checking.

The misstep unfolded when the Adams campaign released a statement attempting to paint Assemblyman Mamdani as out of touch and inexperienced due to his younger age.

However, in their zeal to underscore the supposed generational gap, the campaign claimed Mayor Adams was 63 years old. A quick check of public records, however, reveals Adams, born in September 1960, was actually 64 at the time the statement was issued in August 2025, just weeks shy of his 65th birthday.

This seemingly minor factual error immediately drew attention, not least for its timing and context.

The irony was not lost on many. A campaign that sought to critique an opponent's perceived lack of years found itself tripped up by its own candidate's birth certificate. Zohran Mamdani, a prominent progressive voice, has often been characterized by his relatively younger age in political circles, but the Adams campaign's attempt to weaponize this aspect against him backfired spectacularly when their own data proved inaccurate.

The incident quickly became a talking point, overshadowing the intended message and instead spotlighting the campaign's attention to detail, or lack thereof.

Political strategists weigh in, suggesting that such errors, while not catastrophic, can chip away at a campaign's credibility. In a landscape where voters are increasingly scrutinizing the accuracy of information, even small blunders can be amplified, especially when they occur in the midst of an attack on an opponent.

It raises questions about the rigor of the campaign's fact-checking process and whether their focus might be too heavily skewed towards offense rather than precision.

As the mayoral race heats up, this incident serves as a stark reminder that in politics, every detail matters. While the Adams campaign will likely try to brush off the age discrepancy as a minor oversight, its impact on the narrative – particularly one where they were attempting to position themselves as the more grounded and experienced option – is undeniable.

The age-old adage about those who live in glass houses seems particularly pertinent in this curious chapter of New York City's political theater.