The Cuts

Nov 6, 2025

If we told you back in November 2024 that some Trump voters would cross over to support a Democratic Socialist for New York City mayor the next year — would you have believed us?

Because that’s exactly what happened.

According to NBC News’ official exit polls: of the roughly 25% of NYC voters who supported Trump in 2024, 9% went on to vote for Zohran Mamdani in the 2025 mayoral election.

We wanted to understand why.

So, we decided to dig deeper and talk directly with New Yorkers to better understand the reasons Mamdani’s campaign was so successful, despite being an anti-institutional candidate.

We asked Mamdani voters: “In your own words, what was the #1 reason you voted for Zohran Mamdani?”

If you’ve ever studied political science, one of the ideas you’ve probably studied was a theory called the Median Voter Theorem.

It’s the idea that in a two-party system, the most likely path to victory is to move toward the middle. This is why so many elections end up offering “establishment” candidates who sound almost the same.

The Median Voter Theorem argues that the best path to victory in a two-party system is to appeal to the center and to sound as much like your opponent as possible.

Mamdani ignored that advice. And won anyway.

In the 2024 election, Donald Trump ran on a firmly conservative platform against former Vice President Kamala Harris, who positioned herself closer to the political center. The outcome again defied expectations.

To understand what might be driving this pattern, we spoke with 180 New York City voters. What we found challenges the traditional playbook, because in this election, success wasn’t *just *about the usual Left–Right spectrum.

What we found suggests that the most powerful strategy may not be appealing to the middle, but redefining what the middle means to voters.

About our study & Videotape

We conducted a study to better understand the motivations behind voter consideration for Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral race. The study was conducted on November 5, 2025, using Videotape’s AI-powered market research platform. We surveyed and interviewed 180 registered New York City voters who participated in the 2025 mayoral election.

Note: Our sample was recruited to include a mix of voters, with intentional focus on capturing crossover cases. Black voters emerged over-represented in the final draw (45% vs. 24% citywide); Asian and Hispanic voters under-represented. Crossover voters were not exclusively or predominantly Black.

Important Note: Videotape is not a political organization, and we are neither political scientists nor election experts. This is not a poll.

This is an exploratory study of 180 NYC voters designed to dig into motivations and patterns in voter behavior. All analysis is based solely on our study data and should be interpreted as directional insights, not representative estimates of the full NYC electorate.

All quantitative findings reported in this study are statistically significant within our sample at the p < 0.05 level (Chi-Square). However, findings should be interpreted as directional trends rather than precise numeric estimates. Any statistically significant findings are denoted on the charts with an up (↑) or down (↓) arrow.

What factors mattered most and least in your voting decision?

One of the questions we asked voters was designed to uncover what truly drives their voting preferences. This was a **MaxDiff question, **a research method that asks respondents to select which factors mattered most and least to them from a rotating list of issues.

Unlike standard rating scales where respondents tend to mark everything as “important,” MaxDiff forces trade-offs, revealing which issues truly rise to the top when voters are asked to prioritize.

Results from our MaxDiff, broken out by Mamdani Voters (n=114), and non-Mamdani voters (n=68).

The green represents the percentage of times each answer was selected as the issue that mattered most from the group, and the red represents the percentage of times each answer was selected least.

Issues are then ranked by the net difference between these two percentages, highlighting which issues stood out most strongly for each voter group.

What’s striking is how similar the top of the list looks — and how quickly that alignment unravels.

Both Mamdani and non-Mamdani voters cared most about housing affordability and public safety, but only one campaign made those issues its entire identity.

By defining the race around affordability, Mamdani shifted how voters defined “the middle.”

After that, though, priorities diverged sharply. Mamdani voters over-indexed on **economic inequality and taxes (+33%) **and transit (+12%). Non-Mamdani voters priorities were more diffuse, with economic inequality and taxes (+16%), education (+10%), and immigration (+4%) all sitting at roughly the same level within the margin of our sample.

Also note that on transit, there was a 31% point difference between Mamdani (+12%) and non-Mamdani (-19%) voters.

Mamdani Voters:

Economic inequality / taxes (+33%) 1.

Transit / infrastructure (+12%) 1.

Education (+7%)

Non-Mamdani Voters:

Economic inequality / taxes (+16%) 1.

Education (+10%) 1.

Immigration / ICE (+4%)

One way to interpret this, is that both groups agreed on what mattered most, but not on what came next.

Mamdani voters clustered tightly around economic themes, while non-Mamdani voters had a wider range of cares.

Another data point that reinforces this: Israel–Palestine was one of the least important factors for Mamdani voters. For a self-identified Democratic Socialist, this seems counterintuitive, as progressive candidates are often expected to lead with foreign policy and humanitarian issues.

But this is exactly where Mamdani’s strategy paid off.

The data from our sample suggests Mamdani successfully **controlled the narrative about what voters *****should *****care about in this mayoral race: **the NYC housing crisis. By making affordability the defining issue of the election, he was able to position himself as the candidate most willing to disrupt the status quo on the problem that mattered most, giving him a decisive advantage over his opponents.

It was nearly impossible for the other candidates to compete on this front. While this study cannot determine whether his previous experiences as a housing counselor gave him credibility with voters, Mamdani successfully positioned himself as both the logical and emotional choice on this issue.

We can draw a parallel to President Trump’s campaign, primarily run around inflation rates and immigration. Trump had built *perceived *credibility on economic messaging through his business background and his signature issue of border security—making it nearly impossible for Harris to out-flank him on topics he’d already claimed as his own. In both elections, victory went to the candidate who controlled which issues defined the race.

Mamdani’s victory had less to do with Left– Right ideology than you think.

Looping back to the Median Voter Theorem, consider the 2024 presidential race and the 2025 NYC mayoral race. Both President Trump and Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani sit further from the political center than we typically see in those roles. If the theorem held neatly, you’d expect almost no overlap between their voters.

This chart shows what percentage of New Yorkers who voted for Donald Trump in 2024 also voted for Zohran Mamdani in 2025.

Loading chart...

In our post-election study, 39% of Trump voters in the sample said they voted for Mamdani in the 2025 mayoral race. That share is directionally higher than the 9% reported in NBC News’ official exit poll, which as a representative survey, should be viewed as the most accurate estimate of crossover voting citywide.

Still, both data sources confirm the same reality: a measurable segment of Trump voters backed Mamdani despite their ideological distance.

This represents a crossover pattern that traditional political models struggle to explain.

So we asked them why.

Trump and Mamdani crossover voters were asked: *“As someone who supported Trump in 2024 and Mamdani in 2025, what are the reasons you voted for candidates representing different political parties?” *

To further reinforce this idea, consider the following:

This chart represents responses from people who voted for both Trump and Mamdani to the question: “On a scale from 1 to 5, how much did Mamdani’s opposition to Trump-era policies sway your vote?”

The results are grouped into two categories:

“Swayed me” combines ratings of 4-5 (strongly/somewhat influenced) 1.

“Did not sway me” combines ratings of 1-3 (little/no influence).

Loading chart...

43% of crossover voters in our sample said Mamdani’s opposition to Trump-era policies had little to no influence on their vote.

Take a second to think about what that means.

The default assumption might be that people who voted for Trump in 2024 and then Mamdani in 2025 did so out of political “buyer’s remorse.”

And as we saw in the video, this is true for some. But it’s not the whole story.

Almost half of these voters weren’t voting for Mamdani *just *because they rejected Trump. Evidence suggest they saw Mamdani as the best fit for a different role.

And as we saw earlier in the MaxDiff analysis, that role was clear: solving New York City’s housing affordability crisis.

This reinforces the core idea behind this article: the 2025 NYC mayoral election wasn’t decided by ideology. It was decided by narrative control. By who defined what the election was fundamentally about, and who positioned themselves as the person most likely to fix it. Whether or not they ultimately succeed is beside the point.

Mamdani flipped the script

Let’s go back to the MaxDiff chart of non-Mamdani voters from earlier. The bottom item reveals what we believe was the key to Mamdani’s entire strategy.

The MaxDiff chart for non-Mamdani voters only.

Loading chart...

Socialism is way down the list.

The campaign his opponents ran against him was built almost entirely on anti-socialism messaging. They hammered it relentlessly, trying to make “socialist” a disqualifying label.

But here’s the thing: this wasn’t a national election. It was a NYC election. And for New Yorkers, socialism just… didn’t matter as much as social media might make you believe.

Mamdani’s opponents tried to borrow from Trump’s 2016 and 2024 playbook: control the narrative around an emotionally charged topic and position yourself as the only person who can fix it. Republicans wanted the race to be about socialism versus capitalism, about fear of radical change.

While his opponents ran on fear of what Mamdani might do, Mamdani ran on what he would fix. They tried narrative control through alarm; he achieved it through urgency.

**The pattern holds across both elections: **Harris warned about Trump’s risks while Trump focused on fixing inflation and immigration. Mamdani’s opponents warned about socialism while Mamdani focused on fixing housing costs. In both cases, voters chose the candidate who presented themselves as being uniquely positioned to solve people’s personal problems.

And the data proves it. For the New Yorkers we surveyed, socialism barely registered as important in this election. Housing affordability absolutely did.

Mamdani’s opponents tried to control the narrative, but he simply controlled it better by centering the race on the one issue where he held the strongest hand.

What This Means for Politics

If our study reveals anything, it’s that the politics playbook is changing fast. The Median Voter Theorem still holds mathematically, but the axis has changed. The “median” isn’t ideological anymore; it’s defined by narratives and the issues that dominate public attention.

From our perspective, here’s what seems to matter now:

**Issue salience matters more than ideological positioning. **Voters don’t vote blindly. Left–right labels fade when candidates fail to address people’s most urgent concerns.

**Narrative control is the game. **Candidates who define what the election is about have a massive advantage over those who simply try to be “better” on each topic.

But here’s the catch: both Trump and Mamdani won as challengers. Narrative control is easier when you can point to problems than when you’re defending your record. This raises an uncomfortable question.

If narrative control depends on running against the status quo, are we entering an era of perpetual challenger advantage – one where voters simply sweep out whoever’s in power?

Limitations & future questions

Our sample intentionally oversampled crossover voters (39% vs NBC News’ 9% citywide). This let us understand why they crossed over, not just count them.

What We Can Conclude:

A measurable crossover voting pattern exists (confirmed by both our data and NBC exit polls) 1.

Housing affordability was the dominant issue for Mamdani voters. 1.

Traditional left-right framing failed to predict this election 1.

“Socialist” as a label had limited electoral impact in this race

What We Cannot Yet Conclude:

Causation vs. correlation. Did Mamdani’s housing focus cause crossover voting, or did voters predisposed to crossover simply find his housing message appealing? Our study cannot separate these. 1.

**Replicability. **Is this pattern specific to NYC’s unique housing crisis and political culture, or would it work other major cities? We need comparison cases. 1.

**Durability. **Will these crossover voters stick with Mamdani and consider supporting other Democratic Socialists? Or will they return to Republican voting in 2026? One election is a data point, not a trend.

Earlier we said: “Whether or not they ultimately succeed is beside the point.” This was an oversimplification – governance outcomes absolutely matters. Just on a different timeline than this study can address.

We should also acknowledge other potential contributors to this crossover pattern. These are hypotheses, not conclusions, as this study wasn’t designed to test them.

Outsider Appeal

There’s the possibility that these voters simply chose the most anti-establishment option in both elections as a way of signaling frustration with the political status quo, rather than ideological alignment or for personal motivations.

Name Recognition

Some may have voted for Mamdani simply because he dominated local coverage and visibility during the campaign, running an aggressive social media strategy across TikTok and other platforms.

Absence of a Compelling Alternative

It’s also possible that the crossover isn’t about Mamdani at all.

Many respondents described the field as uninspiring or disconnected, implying their vote was less pro-Mamdani and more anti-everyone else.

A Final Note

This study surveyed 180 NYC voters to understand their motivations. This is not a representative poll, and we’re not political scientists. But the patterns we observed in this study suggest that we should continue challenging long-held assumptions about how elections traditionally have worked.

The 2025 NYC mayoral election didn’t reward moderation. It rewarded message clarity.

Mamdani didn’t need to move towards the middle because he successfully redefined it.

For researchers and strategists, the lesson is clear:

In modern politics, narrative control isn’t just part of the strategy.*** It is the strategy.***

Videotape is an AI-powered research platform that combines on-camera interviews with quantitative methodologies to reveal what people actually think – in their own words. Used by campaigns and brands, it turns hundreds of voices into actionable insight in under 48 hours.

Learn more → videotape.ai

Read more from Videotape