Mapping Momentum:

A Look at NYC's 2024 Mayoral Campaign

New York City’s 2024 mayoral race generated a rich trail of data—from district-level election returns to survey responses and months of field activity. This dashboard brings those sources together to provide a clear, citywide view of how the campaign unfolded and where the candidate stands heading into a potential future run. Across five boroughs and dozens of community districts, we examine overall performance, geographic and income-based patterns, voter sentiment on key issues, and the reach of Get Out The Vote efforts. By connecting what happened at the polls with how voters felt and where campaign resources were deployed, this analysis highlights the areas where the campaign succeeded and the opportunities for improvement. The goal is simple: to convert raw campaign data into strategic insight—supporting smarter decisions and stronger momentum in the next election cycle.

Citywide Results at a Glance

The summary below highlights the total number of votes cast for each candidate, their respective vote shares, and the resulting margin of victory or loss. These figures ground the rest of the dashboard, offering a starting point for interpreting geographic patterns, voter sentiment, and the impact of the field campaign. The candidate secured a solid majority, outpacing the opponent by more than ten percentage points citywide. Understanding this top-level result helps frame the geographic and demographic patterns examined in the sections that follow. This snapshot also reveals the magnitude of the citywide lead, offering a clear benchmark against which district-level variations can be compared. With this baseline established, the subsequent visualizations explore how geography, income, and voter sentiment shaped the distribution of support across the city.

Geographic and Income Patterns in Candidate Support

This map shows how the candidate’s support varied across New York City’s community districts. Darker shades indicate higher vote share, revealing strongholds in several areas of Brooklyn, the Bronx, and northern Manhattan. Lighter districts tended to favor the opponent or were more competitive overall. The dollar-sign markers overlay income categories, highlighting how electoral support intersected with neighborhood economic conditions. Together, these patterns help identify where the campaign performed well and where additional outreach may be needed.

Voter Sentiment by Policy Issue

The survey responses reveal clear differences in how voters perceived the candidate’s policy positions. Childcare, affordable housing, and public transit received the strongest levels of agreement, suggesting these messages resonated most consistently across respondents. Small business tax policy showed more mixed views, with a substantial share of neutral or only moderately supportive responses. Police reform displayed the widest spread of opinions, indicating it may be a more polarizing or less clearly communicated issue for the campaign.
Together, these patterns highlight where the candidate’s platform aligns well with voter priorities and where additional clarification or targeted outreach could strengthen future support. For a future campaign, emphasizing housing and transit in core messaging, while clarifying the candidate’s stance on police reform and small business tax policy, could help convert lukewarm or uncertain voters into more consistent supporters.

Does familiarity with the candidate affect how positively voters view the campaign’s key issues?

Across most issues, respondents who had not heard of the candidate actually report slightly higher average alignment with the campaign’s policies than those who were already aware. The gap is most pronounced on childcare, housing, transit, and small business tax policy, where the “not aware” bar extends further to the right than the “aware” bar. Only on police reform do aware respondents rate the candidate’s position marginally higher.

This pattern suggests that the policies themselves are reasonably appealing in the abstract, but that knowing the candidate does not automatically boost perceived alignment—and may even introduce more skepticism or mixed feelings. For a future campaign, this points to a different challenge than simple name recognition: the candidate may need to focus on how they are framed and talked about, so that increased awareness reinforces, rather than dampens, the positive reaction many voters have to the policy agenda itself.

Do Campaign Efforts Drive Turnout? A Two-Part Look

GOTV Knocking vs. Turnout

The first scatterplot compares turnout with the intensity of door knocking, measured as GOTV doors knocked per 1,000 registered voters in each district. While there is a slight upward trend, the relationship is weak: districts with extensive door knocking did not consistently achieve higher turnout, and some districts with very little GOTV effort still posted some of the highest turnout levels.

Candidate Hours vs. Turnout

The second scatterplot shows a noticeably stronger relationship between candidate hours spent in a district and turnout. Districts where the candidate spent more time generally saw higher turnout, with several high-engagement districts reaching turnout rates above 70–80%. This suggests that the candidate’s personal presence may have been more closely aligned with voter mobilization than the GOTV program alone.

Key Takeaways and Next Steps

This analysis points to a campaign with clear momentum but uneven support across the city. Three themes stand out:

Strong policy resonance on childcare, housing and transit. These issues show the highest levels of agreement in the survey data, suggesting they should remain at the core of the candidate’s message.
Uneven geographic performance by income and district. Some districts combine strong vote share and turnout, while others lag—particularly in [lower/higher]-income areas where the map shows weaker support.
Mixed reactions to small business tax and police reform. These topics appear more polarizing or less clearly understood, with a wider spread of responses.

For a future campaign, a targeted strategy that:

doubles down on childcare, housing and transit as signature issues,
devotes more field time and GOTV resources to underperforming districts, and
refines messaging around small business tax, and police reform

will be key to turning today’s baseline support into a more durable winning coalition.