By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A surprising NBC News exit poll revealed that nearly 10% of voters who supported Zohran Mamdani in the recent New York City mayoral election also voted for Donald Trump in the previous year’s election. This phenomenon demonstrates an interesting cross-over of support, driven by issues of affordability, with some voters, like Adalberto Rodriguez, citing sympathy for Trump and excitement for Mamdani’s campaign as their reasons. Trump and Mamdani later had a surprisingly cordial meeting, where Trump expressed a willingness to support Mamdani’s efforts to make New York City “strong and safe.” Mamdani emphasized his campaign’s focus on affordability and the importance of addressing the cost of living as a key factor in winning back voters who had supported Trump.
Read the original article here
Almost one in 10 Mamdani voters were also Trump voters, study finds, and that’s a headline that definitely sparks some thought. It’s like finding out some folks enjoy both pizza and… well, something else entirely different. The thing is, when you dig into it, it’s not always that surprising. The core of it seems to be a shared frustration with the status quo, a feeling that things are broken and need fixing. That sentiment can lead people down some pretty unexpected paths in the voting booth.
Many people who voted for Trump did it because of his promises of affordability. This isn’t groundbreaking news; the cost of living is a major concern for a lot of people, and Trump tapped into that. Mamdani, similarly, ran on a platform that included affordability, recognizing that same widespread anxiety. One person, a Brooklynite named Adalberto Rodriguez, highlighted this when he expressed a sense of excitement for both politicians. The common thread is the promise of change.
These voters are not necessarily “idiots,” as some might hastily label them. They’re likely people who are hurting financially and seeking relief. In a country where the cost of living keeps rising, it makes sense that they are drawn to candidates who promise to address that issue, regardless of their other political views. It’s change, and people, as studies have shown, will rally for change.
The appeal of anti-establishment candidates is undeniable, especially in the current political climate. Trump, as an outsider, capitalized on this sentiment, promising to disrupt a system many voters felt had failed them. Mamdani, on a local level, presented a similar image. Both, in their own ways, positioned themselves as agents of change. This is the heart of why many people vote for them. It all boils down to “vibes” over policy.
Mamdani and Bernie Sanders understand the appeal of labor and it makes total sense that issues that hit home will attract voters of all types. This overlap underscores the complexity of voter behavior. Someone who votes for Trump on the national stage might very well support a progressive candidate locally, if that local candidate addresses their needs. We saw that with AOC, too. Both Trump and Mamdani can be seen as “anti-establishment” figures by people who are tired of a system that they see as corrupt or out of touch. The point is, people want change, and they’ll vote for those who promise it, regardless of the fine print.
The focus on populism is key. Both candidates, in their own ways, tapped into the frustrations of the working class. Trump’s populist rhetoric resonated with a specific demographic, while Mamdani’s message of change is attractive. It’s like a political “American Idol” competition, where personality and promise often trump detailed policy analysis.
This isn’t really about viewpoints. It’s protest voting by those who feel screwed over. This is a recurring theme in politics. They are looking for someone to fix things, and if the current politicians aren’t doing it, they’ll turn to someone who promises a fresh start. This also explains why, even within families, there are political discrepancies. A boomer aunt who once supported Bernie Sanders then became a MAGA voter because of personal finance problems, then a “Social Democrat” voter when the cost of living went up. Personal experiences drive voting, more than what their politics suggest.
The data suggests that a small percentage of Trump voters may have shifted their support to Mamdani. The numbers, however, aren’t staggering. The fact that the percentage of voters is low indicates the complexities in voting trends. In reality, less than 10% of Trump voters swung Mamdani’s way, and that’s not exactly a massive endorsement of cross-party alignment. This confirms that elections are, in some ways, popularity contests based on the “vibe” and promises, not necessarily the nitty-gritty details of policy. The people vote for what they want, not necessarily the reality of what may or may not happen.
There is a huge segment of the electorate that is dead set against any sort of “business as usual” politics. It doesn’t matter to them if it comes from the left or the right as long as it disrupts the status quo. The fact that Trump could pull the numbers he did is shocking to many, but it reinforces the understanding that voters don’t really care how change comes.
The prevalence of AOC / Trump voters in previous years gives further context. These voters want populist change away from a system they don’t think pays them any attention, and who aren’t clear on who is actually for the working class and who talks a good game. Both Trump and Mamdani present themselves as outsiders, with promises that might get the support from populist voters. That’s how it works.
People change their minds. Trump’s approval ratings fluctuate. People want tax cuts, and that’s a universally appealing message. Both Mamdani and Trump found popularity with these key points, demonstrating how universal these feelings are.
At the end of the day, it’s about promises, the feeling of hope and change. One can use this as propaganda, while the other claims to push it for moral platform.