Left, right and center are oversimplifying. Here’s how people actually think differently from one another.
As Andrew Cuomo’s lead over Zohran Mamdani narrows in the final days of the primary campaign, the mayoral race is being framed as a contest between establishment pragmatism and progressive idealism. Cuomo talks about growing up in Queens and focuses on management credentials and public safety; Mamdani, a state assemblyman, touts his Democratic Socialist pedigree while promising to freeze rent, deliver free child care and create fare-free buses.
The contrast creates a compelling and dramatic frame for many in the media — but it’s simplistic. Research I completed earlier this year — 12 focus groups followed by a survey of 2,199 New York City voters — reveals that the city’s political reality is far more nuanced. Rather than progressive versus moderate, New York’s voters cluster around shared experiences and priorities that resist simple categorization. Understanding these communities is key to both this campaign and effective governance in 2026.
The five communities that define New York City politics
People are complicated. Any attempt to categorize millions of people is going to risk being at least a bit broad-brush, but using statistical analysis to identify patterns in how New Yorkers think about politics, I was able to define five distinct voter types that I believe much more accurately characterize people than the labels and political lanes we typically use today. Rather than imposing predetermined categories, this data-driven approach lets the voters’ own attitudes and priorities reveal the natural groupings that exist across the city.
First are progressive reformers, or 18% of registered voters. These represent the city's ascendant left wing — predominantly young, white and well-educated voters concentrated in gentrifying neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens. With 68% of this group identifying as very liberal and 89% strongly disapproving of Mayor Eric Adams, they drive much of the city’s political discourse despite comprising less than one-fifth of the electorate. Housing affordability dominates their concerns (95% say they are very concerned), but their moderate stance on crime — only 13% see it as a major problem — creates a significant perceptual gap with other segments. As one focus group participant noted, they want leaders who can deliver “structural change” rather than incremental fixes. Their digital-first engagement and high civic participation make them influential beyond their numbers; however, their concentration in select neighborhoods — which tend to be more affluent and safer — gives them relative distance from daily safety concerns, which can limit citywide coalition-building efforts without broader outreach.
Pragmatic progressives, or 23% of those polled, occupy the critical center-left position and represent the city’s political center of gravity. Geographically dispersed across all boroughs, these diverse, educated voters form a potentially decisive constituency capable of building coalitions with either progressive reformers or more moderate segments. They embody the city’s anxious middle and upper-middle class — economically stable yet increasingly squeezed by rising costs and uncertain about their future in an expensive city. Think of Dan from Queens, a member of one of my focus groups, who captures their practical frustration: “I've been living in the same rent-stabilized apartment for eight, nine years now. Very tiny. I want to start a family. I have been looking for a bigger place that I can afford for, like, a year, and it has been hard.” They support progressive aims but want leaders who can “be real with what you wanna do” and “make yourself accountable.” Their evidence-based approach, high civic engagement, and participation in formal community structures make them natural coalition-builders and institutional Democratic voters. Still, they're skeptical of both performative politics and sweeping promises without clear implementation plans — they want meaningful progress through existing institutions, not revolutionary change.
Discontented strivers, or 29% of voters, are the ethnically diverse working and middle-class feeling squeezed from all sides. Picture Steve from Brooklyn, who told us, “I can't see myself living anywhere but New York. I love it here,” yet fears being “pushed out” as things get worse. Or Elizabeth, planning her escape: “I'm just tired of New York. It’s so draining, and the environment is just stressing me out. I have my plan. I got my passport.” They represent the painful contradiction of loving the city while being exhausted by it.
This group is especially sensitive to concerns about crime — something our politicians sometimes fail to understand. They’re parents like Denny, using tracking apps to monitor their children’s movements because “everything just happens in the streets with the kids and the violence.” They hold progressive values but prioritize immediate safety concerns. They want both Zohran Mamdani’s affordability agenda and the basic governance competence Andrew Cuomo promises. Yet neither candidate fully speaks to their lived reality, where progressive ideals are tempered by daily survival.
Then there are what I call traditional outer-borough voters, making up about 10% of the potential electorate. These represent the smallest but most neighborhood-focused segment — diverse, working-class residents concentrated in Queens and outer areas who prioritize local concerns over citywide policy debates. Middle-aged and older, with deep community roots, they're Democratic-registered but often more conservative on local issues, and broadly skeptical of Manhattan-centric politics, regardless of party. What separates them from other segments is their intense focus on preservation over transformation and community stability over growth. They have a fundamentally different day-to-day experience than discontented strivers. For example, while strivers see neighborhood decline everywhere, traditional outer-borough voters see improvement in their areas — making them protective of community stability rather than supportive of sweeping reform. As one participant emphasized, they want mayors who understand that “responsiveness to neighborhood-specific concerns” matters more than grand ideological visions. Despite long-term residency, they feel neglected by city leadership and rely on community networks rather than mainstream media for political information. Their electoral significance is magnified in local and lower-turnout elections, where their neighborhood loyalty and split-ticket voting can have a decisive influence on outcomes.
Last but not least, New York has a healthy share (21%) of what I call law-and-order conservatives. These are the city's center-right constituency — older, diverse homeowners concentrated in middle-class outer-borough neighborhoods who prioritize safety and fiscal responsibility above all else. More racially diverse than national conservatives (42% white, 23% Black, 19% Hispanic), they share deep concerns about public safety (80% see crime as a significant problem) and seek “basics first” governance focused on core services rather than broad policy changes. This group was less likely than others to support Kamala Harris over Donald Trump in 2024, and are far less supportive of offering city aid to migrants than their traditional outer-borough neighbors. Overall, only 18% believe the city should continue offering aid to migrants, even with time restrictions, compared to 68% of traditional outer-borough voters. As one participant noted, they prioritize “safe streets, functional services and community preservation.” Their reliance on traditional, and not social media, shapes their political engagement, making them a target group for candidates who can demonstrate both safety credentials and fiscal discipline.
Taken together, these five segments reveal something crucial about New York City — these aren’t different voting blocs — they reflect fundamentally different lived experiences in the same city. For example, two-thirds of progressive reformers feel safe riding the subway at night, compared to only six percent of discontented strivers who say the same. When Marjorie from Chelsea describes being “literally on the phone with my partner when shots started being fired … I ran across the street, hid behind a car, called 911,” it’s a world away from progressive reformers debating transit policy. As one outer borough resident put it: “You’re so focused on just trying to survive that there’s no time for anything else.”
Worlds apart, but room for consensus
Despite these perception gaps, remarkable consensus exists on specific solutions that candidates and elected officials should embrace. Converting commercial buildings into residences, for example, enjoys 91% support across the city and no less than 86% support in any one segment. Whether voters are progressive reformers seeking systemic change, traditional outer borough voters prioritizing neighborhood stability or discontented strivers needing immediate relief, addressing the housing affordability crisis head-on unites everyone.
Similarly, 89% of those we surveyed support requiring treatment for disruptive individuals with severe mental illness, while 73% prefer mental health crisis teams over increased policing. New Yorkers across all segments want approaches that address root causes while ensuring immediate security — precisely the kind of evidence-based policy that transcends traditional left-right frameworks. Strong majorities also support increased police presence on transit (85%) and city control of the MTA (79%), showing an appetite for practical improvements over ideological purity.
New York’s future depends not on winning ideological battles but on building civic well-being that makes all residents feel invested in the city’s success. The candidate who wins this month’s primary — and the general election — will be the one who best understands that Steve needs both his love for the city to be validated and his fears about being pushed out to be addressed. They’ll recognize that Elizabeth’s exhaustion reflects systemic failures, not personal weakness, and that Dan’s housing struggle represents thousands of families postponing their futures. As Steve put it: “I think we lack leadership. I think it starts at the top. If we had some good leadership, I think the trickle-down effect would be immense.” New York’s complexity isn’t a problem to solve — it’s a reality for the next mayor to embrace.