1. Said with no emotion, “I have $1,000.”

2. Said with confusion, “I have $1,000?”

3. Said with excitement, “I have $1,000!”

I would be willing to bet $1,000 that it is not (1). You likely are not opening your statement and stating a fact. This is a very accounting one-dimensional perspective.

If you expected last week’s pay check to clear, you might be confused why it is only $1,000. If you thought you were going to have nothing in there, you might be ready to go out and buy a new pair of shoes.

Share

Subscribe now

Since most of us are not accountants, when we look at any metric, we try to make sense beyond its fact status. If it instinctively seems high or low, we are subconsciously comparing to some expectation. In the data world, common comparisons are “zero” or “average.” Sometimes we are more advanced and add context like how a 50 degree day in March means “time to get out” while a 50 degree day in September means “time to shut in.”

In sports, there is a popular concept called “replacement players” which are the baseline comparison of many individual player statistics.

For example, in baseball there is a metric called WAR, or “Wins Above Replacement.” This metric estimates the contribution of an individual player in terms of wins, the ultimate metric in sports, versus a player a team could call up from the minor leagues at any time. These are the “replacement players.”

What is core about these players is that they are assumed to be

1. Highly skilled. They are playing at the second highest level in the profession.

2. Not as skilled as Major League players. There is a reason why they are still in the minors.

3. Fungible. They are easy enough to find and replace.

WAR has become the favorite stat among both baseball nerds and novices because it is a metric which is interpretable (e.g., Player A is worth X more wins than Player B).

If you reread the sub-title of this post, the next logical question is: what would happen if I applied this concept to the House of Representatives? Duh.

2xParked has got your back.

With the midterms approaching and every House seat up for grabs, I quickly created a new metric I will call BAR, or “Bills Above Replacement.”

The core idea is simple. House of Reps has one remit as a national legislative body: legislate. This is a metric to help us look back at the 119th congress and translate each representative’s actions into bills passed compared to some replacement congressman who could have been called up from the bench of local politicians, community leaders, and business moguls.

Using legislative data gathered from congress.gov…

1. I collected [1] how many bills an individual sponsored, [2] how many bills an individual co-sponsored, [3] session attendance, and [4] if the individual was a party leader in core committees.

2. I found the relationship between these components with bills passed in the House. I did not include “bills made into law” because [1] that is dependent on the Senate and the President and [2] that can take a long time depending on everything from politics to prioritization. I adjusted based on Party since the GOP has an advantage of being able to set the agenda.

3. I compared how each representative performed to a “replacement player”, i.e. congressmen taking oath mid-way through a term.

4. I translated this into bills passed above a replacement congressman, aka BAR.

There are some key limitations I am aware of and will attempt to remedy as we re-evaluate:

• It accounts for quantity over quality. Writing 100 bills on changing the name of a post office likely does not equate to writing one bill on taxes.

• It does not account for the fact that some bills are more difficult to pass and the backroom skills and influence required to do so.

• It does not account for the end-result of becoming a law.

I think this is a good start overall. Our four key input metrics represent constructing a bill, having influence on peers to pass a bill, setting the agenda, and representing constituents when votes are needed. In my professional career I have seen many occasions where some data is worse than no data, and I do not believe this to be the case.

Without further ado, here are our NYC reps this term:

Here are some of my initial observations.

• In this Congress, NYC has good representation. Kudos to us for mostly doing a good job in 2024 and voting for folks who will work hard to represent our City. If NYC were a state, its BAR average of 0.65 would be 11th best, in between Vermont and California, and its total BAR sum of 8.4 would be 6th best right after Michigan.

• Next Congress will have big shoes to fill for New Yorkers. Retiring at term’s end, Nydia Velázquez is still putting in the work in her final term as the ranking member of the House Small Business Committee. Jerrold Nadler on the other hand…
  Notable Comparison: Maxine Waters, age 88, is still among the Democratic leaders while Hal Rogers, 88, is up to BAR with Nadler.

• We will lose active high achievers from this past term. Brooklyn favored Brad Lander over Dan Goldman and Darializa Avila Chevalier over Adriano Espaillat in June’s primary. Do New Yorkers even know these were in the top 30th percentile of representatives last year?
  Notable Comparison: George Latimer has had a good freshman campaign after ousting Jamaal Bowman in the 2024 primary, showing that work can be done quickly and expectations should be high.

• Don’t take too much stock in Hakeem Jeffries’ stat. Jeffries and Mike Johnson are unique in that they are the party leaders, not just a leader of a committee. They are more for shaping the vision, not just agenda, and I will have to noodle a bit on how to account for that in v2.
  Notable Comparison: Mike Johnson ranks around Jeffries, but again, this should be expected but held with a grain of salt.

• What is Nicole Malliotakis doing? As the lone GOP representative from New York, she is producing less than many of her neighbors in the House despite them being part of the minority party.
  Notable Comparison: Michael Lawler, who won a difficult upstate seat filled with ex-New Yorkers, is one of the top ranked members of the House with 2.5 BAR.

• What is AOC doing? There is an argument to be made that AOC’s grand power is her influence outside the chamber. That being said, as a leader of progressives within the chamber, I would have expected her influence to be represented more in terms of the cosponsoring aspect. If you argue that she might have been anti-congress by not sponsoring and cosponsoring, then her BAR is fitting that she is, as the kids might say, a mid legislator.
  Notable Comparison: Fellow noted progressive leader Ilhan Omar ranks in the top 71st percentile with a BAR of 0.6, meaning work can still be done as a leading but divisive political voice.

In most private jobs, there is a grace period for someone to learn. For our new congress-elects and our returning incumbents, they do not have this luxury. A short-term loss in congress could mean lives and livelihood, so hopefully the new freshmen are ready to legislate on day 1. Otherwise, it is justifiably within our power as voters to vote them out in two years.

Even though this model is an MVP (minimum viable product, not most valuable player, for those of you not speaking the business lingo), we now have tools to quantify performance. I expect only improvement from here on, and you should too!

Adam from 2xParked.

Share

Subscribe now

P.S.

Here is the newest card to my collection. It screams New York City 1,000 times over.

First, it is a 1952 Topps card. Topps is still the top manufacturer of baseball cards, and its history starts in Brooklyn. Story goes that sales for these 1950s Topps cards were poor and took up space, so they threw them in the water. This created scarcity as cards became a major hobby force in the 1980s, and the crown jewel, the 1952 Mickey Mantle, can be yours today starting at $100,000. You can try wandering around Industry City to see if some of them avoided the water, but I have yet to find any.

Second, Hank Thompson is a New York Giants legend. The New York Giants, the Coogan’s Bluff-based predecessor to the now San Francisco Giants, took two seasons after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier to play their first Black player. That player was third baseman Hank Thompson. Thompson would play on the Giants for eight seasons, including the 1951 World Championship team, and he would accumulate a career WAR of 30.8 (bWAR). He also was the first Black player on the St. Louis Browns, the team which eventually moved to Baltimore and became the Orioles, making him the only player to be first to integrate two teams.

“We've got the teamwork to make the dream work. Let's go! Let's go Mets!” ~ Shelly Palmer (1986)

Every Mets fan has their team. “Real ones” will know what I am talking about.

To be initiated into the Mets fan fraternity, there is a team and a season which will drop you to rock bottom in terms of fandom for the first time. It could be due to an epic season-long collapse, one bad finale, an ominous opening day that sets a course a historically embarrassing year, or a front office implosion.

You can’t graduate from recruit status until this experience forces your hand to decide, “is this the life I want to live?”

You can choose to say “this is not for me” and live a happy, carefree life from what I have been told. Or you can be like me. To quote Mets legend Tug McGraw, “ya gotta believe.” Regardless of when you are forced to answer, as an adult or child, this is a lifelong decision/punishment.

My team is the 1998 Amazins. I distinctly remember the confused joy of waking up at a sleepover to learn that they surprisingly acquired superstar slugger Mike Piazza. I also remember this season as the first of many epic collapses in my fandom. They lost the final 5 games of the season to go from safely wild card bound to a one-way off-season ticket. I would have to wait another season to finally see them in the playoffs live for the first time.

There is something both uniquely rewarding and uniquely disappointing about being a Mets fan. The highs are unworldly. This is exemplified by the fact that more people attended the Miracle Mets ticker tape parade in 1969 than the return of the Apollo 11 moon-landing astronauts in the same Canyon of Heroes a few months prior. The cost is that (sometimes-earned) stigma and shame come along with the fandom. Even non-sports fans know that there is always a reason for Mets fans to feel shame, even if that reason can’t be explicitly articulated.

Share

Subscribe now

How do we quantify what it means to be a Mets fan? They are not a “bad” team per se. In the past 30 years, they have made two World Series, 7 playoff appearances, and had a couple of players enter the Hall of Fame. It is not like they are not trying either. Even during the cash-strapped Madoff seasons, they were still spending league average in salaries.

So what if someone asks you “what is it like to take the Sisyphean journey every year as a Mets fan?” This requires not just data analysis; it is a self-reflection.

The data can guide the way though. I decided to look at team-by-team records over the past 27 years. 1998 is a great starting point since it is when MLB expanded from 28 to today’s 30 teams. It incorporates both high season-to-season player turnover and increased motivation to win smaller divisions. I only included full seasons, so the 2020 COVID-shortened year was excluded.

Are the Mets bad?

Over the past 27 full seasons, the Mets have averaged 82 wins. An average team (i.e. 50% winning percentage) will win 81 games. This is hardly the record of a bad team. Pirates, Reds, and Rockies fans would love a word if you are convinced the Mets are bad.

Verdict: Not Bad

Are the Mets good?

The opposite of bad is not “good”; rather, it is “not bad.”

The Mets have the 12th best record in this time period, but upon performing a statistical test to see if their average wins is statistically greater than 81, I found there was no evidence to support the hypothesis (p-value = 0.27) that they are good. Instead, they are one of a handful of teams stuck in mediocrity during this time frame.

Verdict: Not Good

Are the Mets unlucky?

There is a concept in sports called the Pythagorean Theorem of Expectations. Don’t worry; this has nothing to do with right triangles.

This theorem was formulated by baseball statistician Bill James. His theory is that the amount of runs (or points in other sports) a team scores vs. gives up is actually more indicative of team performance than wins and losses.

Imagine a scenario where we have reached the mid-point of the season, and a team has scored way more runs than it has allowed. Imagine that team also has more losses than wins. The theory is that this team is actually playing better than their record might indicate. Furthermore, this team will be predicted to have a good record in the second half of the season. In practice, this is how the data usually plays out.

What we are interested in is the difference between how many wins a team has at the end of a season and the team’s “true performance”, i.e. Pythagorean wins, i.e. wins predicted based on runs scored and allowed. This difference can be attributed to luck. If a team wins more than its performance might suggest, a team is considered lucky.

The Mets have averaged 0.33 more wins their record might indicate. An unlucky team would see a strongly negative number. It should be noted that this 0.33 is basically 0 and insubstantial, so the Mets are not lucky either in the long run. Their record on average is justified by their play.

Verdict: Not Unlucky; Not Lucky

So what is it?

I always felt there was something different about being a Mets fan, but, perhaps, we are no different than any other fandom? Our team is not good. Our team is not bad. Our team is not unlucky or lucky. Most fans can say that about their team.

There is one more element I wanted to investigate. Realists might question if they are “systemically disappointing,” while others might ask if they are simply “cursed.” Some might ask if there is a difference.

At the beginning of the season, there is a feeling of hope. For Mets fans, that hope is justified. A really good predictor of how your team will do is betting lines from Las Vegas. Before each year, betting markets create a future wins line essentially designed with a 50% chance that the team will do better and a 50% chance that the team will perform worse by season’s end.

The Mets have had the 6th highest preseason expected wins of all 30 MLB teams. They are supposed to be good.

Vegas is really good at predicting this. Using historical data from covers.com, we can look back at how teams were predicted to perform and how well they did. On average, Vegas has missed by -0.4 wins per team, a gap between prediction and performance that is not statistically different from 0 (p-value = 0.22).

Although it is centered around 0, there are some fairly big misses year-to-year which might be correlated from team to team. When we graph average predicted wins vs. actual wins by team, there is one dot in particular which looks a bit lower than what we might expect.

The Mets have the worst differential between their expected wins and actual wins of all 30 MLB teams at 3.55 wins less than expected per season on average. Over the course of 27 seasons, this is nearly 100 fewer wins than expected(!).

When we include the end of their glorious run in 2026, we will be able to definitively say that this team is either cursed or consistently disappointing.

Verdict: Something is very off here.

So where do we stand?

-3.55 wins each season likely changes the personality of a fandom substantially. Good-bye, Charlie Brown. Hello, SpongeBob.

• 1998: They would have won the wild card over the Cubs. The playoff narrative which helped Sammy Sosa win MVP over Mark McGwire might not have happened.

• 2000: They would have won the NL East, stopping the Braves streak at 5 straight NL East titles instead of allowing it to run to 11.

• 2007: The collapse would have been forgotten.

• 2008: Another collapse would have been erased from history.

• 2019: This really fun upstart team, one of my favorites not to have made the playoffs, could have been immortalized with a playoff appearance.

• 2020: The playoff party, which seemingly included most teams, would have included the Mets.

• 2022: The Mets would have punched their ticket to the Division Round after not completing the collapse to the Braves.

• 2025: The collapse would have been a footnote, meaning perhaps the 2026 team would still have Alonso and Nimmo.

The difference between bad luck and cursed is that bad luck implies unpredictability. As evidenced in my Mets text groups, when the Mets started to slide last summer despite having one of the best winning percentages at that time, we all knew where the team would stand by fall.

What is worse is that I can’t tell you the cause of this effect as to reverse any sort of hex. Perhaps they are being punished for the greed of the Giants and Dodgers leaving town nearly 70 years ago? Perhaps they used up all goodwill to win the miraculous 1969 and 1986 World Series? Maybe there is something in the marshy waters of Flushing?

Despite all this, 2027 is definitely the Year of the Mets. #LGM

Ya gotta believe,

Adam from 2xParked

Share

Subscribe now

“6 - 7” ~ every adult attempting to ruin 6-7

Much has been written about the pessimism Americans have towards our country. The lack of confidence in both our private and public institutions has resulted in American pride reaching 20-year lows.

From someone who trendily used cynicism before it was cool, it should not be lost that the beauty of our nation is that both a positive and negative truth can exist from the same fact. For example, it is both a truth that:

1. We live in a time with the second lowest poverty rate in the US since it started to be measured in 1959, which is really good progress.

2. 36 million people living in the USA are below the poverty line, which is unacceptable for the richest nation on earth.

New Yorkers want and deserve more, always

This feeling of wanting more is no more acted upon than in NYC. My fellow electorate can turn on our politicians more quickly than a promising Mets season in July1. Ask Eric Adams. Ask Bill de Blasio. Ask Rudy Giuliani. It has only been eight months since Mamdani won with 50.9% of the vote.

It might not seem like a slight majority with the good times generated by the Knicks, the World Cup, and the summer weather. At some point New Yorkers will be asking “are things actually better?” We are not a patient crew.

Despite the vibes being vibey, Mamdani has had a mixed bag of accomplishing major election initiatives. He has accomplished some of his major stated goals (e.g. securing state funding for one year of child care, removing many antisemitic protections, freezing rent for rent stabilized apartments) and left some others unresolved (e.g. free buses, anything involving taxes and the rich).

One of the more controversial initiatives advanced further while I was away on vacation last spring. He announced the second of his city-owned grocery stores, scheduled to be opened in Hunts Point in 2027. This comes a month after his first announced location in East Harlem.

Share

Subscribe now

Some see this as Robin Hoodian. These stores will allow residents in “food deserts2” the opportunity to purchase produce at prices controlled by the city, replicating the success of small people-owned food co-ops.

Some will see this as the “uh-oh” jumping-the-shark moment. Those remembering the USSR’s neglect of basic micro- and macroeconomic principles in their own staging of government-controlled grocery markets are reminded of product shortages, long lines, and mass hunger.

There is a stark difference in these outcomes, so what can we expect here in the City?

This opinion is up to you. It will take time before we have any proof one way or another. I can help by creating a framework built upon basic economic principles and assumptions. Whatever side your gut says right now might not be as clear when you analyze it, so let’s dive in.

These grocery stores belong only in areas with a high demand.

I said I will cover “basics,” and you can’t get any more basic than “put a store where there are people who would want groceries.” We live in New York City, the most densely population city in the country. I think it is fair to assume that groceries are universally demanded almost everywhere.

The only areas where there is no obvious demand are on major highways, the middle of parks, and storage yards. Even those you might argue have enough foot traffic to generate more demand than a small upstate town.

Although obvious, it is my duty to note that in areas of low demand, a grocery store might be seen as a waste of government spending. Bad.

These grocery stores belong only in areas with a low supply.

Government grocery stores play by different rules than private grocery stores, and pitting them against each other is likely bad for the local economy long term. Government-owned grocery stores can undercut prices without undercutting costs (at least in the short term), putting them at a clear competitive advantage over privately owned grocery stores.

Considering that only 22% of grocery stores are owned by white owners, this plan, as liberal writer Noah Smith notes, “would just put a bunch of independent minority-owned and immigrant-owned stores out of business.” Even the highly progressive New Republic mentions that “studies have repeatedly shown that, in American cities in general, distance to a grocer isn’t the biggest determinant of what people eat or health outcomes.”

The worst possible outcome is their eventual evolution into a de facto monopoly without the motivation of efficiency. Basically, translate those phone calls you have had with Con Ed or Spectrum Internet into a grocery store business. Since the store will be less impacted by the market forces that influence a private business, it will be slower to adjust. If this happens and all private institutions in the area are gone, then the people initially helped by these grocers are the ones most hurt by both a worse product and higher taxes to pay for it to exist.

Quick Interlude.

You can already see a paradox which may not make sense: Why would there exist places of high demand and low supply?

One might argue it is an affordability issue. Jan Dutkiewicz and Gabriel Rosenberg further wrote in the New Republic, “Price and preference determined diets much more than proximity did, and many consumers opted to travel further if it meant cheaper food. Or, in Mamdani’s terminology, it’s affordability that’s the core problem. Moving the grocery stores—or poor people, for that matter—doesn’t put money in pockets to buy dinner.”

But they also wrote that “massive economies of scale nevertheless allow grocery giants to offer most consumers the best prices for their preferred products—even factoring in corporate greed and food price inflation.” Basically, big business finds a way to exist in areas of high poverty because there is always a high demand for food, especially in a population-dense New York City.

This means there is likely a “cost” issue preventing a private institution from providing affordable goods.

This is the real problem which the Mamdani administration needs to solve.

In the press release, the administration blames real estate costs. This is a relatively easy solve for a government. It is why tax credits exist, which would be cheaper and more beneficial to neighborhoods in need. This is why it is likely not a real estate cost issue.

So is it an overhead cost thing? Is there proper space? What about secondary costs like insurance or security? Is it too much government red tape or zoning? Or is there something social or structural about the area? That is what we are hoping the administration is actually solving.

These stores need to be a temporary fix, not a permanent one.

Regardless of whether you like or dislike this policy initially, 1.4 million New Yorkers experience food insecurity according to City Harvest. Current jobs are not cutting it either. 2-in-3 New Yorkers who visit food pantries are employed.

Having available and cheap produce will likely be popular no matter where the store is located. As the cliche goes, these grocery stores are a band-aid for the symptoms, not a cure for the disease. Solving for a long-term fix requires complex problem-solving, creativity, and time. Saying otherwise is lying.

Over time, they could become a chronic problem. It could take a few years (see Kansas City) or it could take a few decades, but the longer the real issue remains unresolved, the more difficult it will be to resolve. That will be a detriment to these neighborhoods and to our city.

Now it is up to you.

It is less a matter of whether you think these stores are a good idea or bad idea Rather, you should be asking: does the government thinks of these grocery stores as a band-aid or the permanent solution?

You don't need to form your opinion now, but it's critical you have an educated one by the time the next city-wide election comes. This is the type of topic that could carry huge economic ramifications, ones elected candidates will have to defend, and it's up to you to judge that defense. You might be surprised that your gut today is wrong tomorrow, whether you think this is utopic or dystopic idea.

This is not be the last we will hear about this. Regardless of whether a real long-term solution is presented, this will be a victory march for the 2029 re-election campaign as these stores will just be opening and the potential damage will likely not set in yet. With a real long-term plan, this might serve as a successful model for other cities. Without regard for long-term detriment, it is far from a victory.

Until next time,

Adam from 2xParked

Subscribe now

Share

“There are only two lines in this world I would even consider standing 45 minutes. The first is for a really great slice of pizza. The second is voting.” ~ A Very Hip Young Voter pre-2xParked, Interviewed by The Harold Sun (Australia), November 2016

Good morning. 🙋‍♂️. Time to wake up!

I ended up passing out around 11:15 PM last night after I looked at some data, wrote this up, and schedule sent this edition of 2xParked to be in your inbox bright and early.

Now that you have voted and the results are being tallied, I want to do a little thought exercise.

Close your eyes. 😊

Find a comfortable seat. 🛋️

Take a deep breath. 😤

Are you ready?

Subscribe now

Let’s begin.

You are a New York voter. You have been following politics for the greater part of the past decade. Imagine a candidate who has these attributes:

• This candidate has charm and charisma that play well to the base on every TV appearance, whether its a press conference, morning show, or organized rally.

• This candidate can inspire a portion of the population that had been politically inactive to turn out and vote. This is a keystone of the win.

• This candidate won despite being seen as inexperienced and an underdog, defeating an opponent who had more experience on paper but ran a sub-optimal campaign.

• This candidate is willing to promote extreme policies. Some are unrealistic because of political opposition, some are impossible given the actual powers of the office, and some face serious infighting headwinds as they go against party norms.

• This candidate knows the math to victory. You don’t need everyone’s vote, just certain blocs. He can appeal more to the extreme than to the center, so long as the message hits right for enough votes to clear 50%. In effect, he is almost explicitly telling many sub-groups, “I’m not even trying to win you over.”

• Those who voted for this candidate can't understand how anyone wouldn't. Those who voted against can't understand how anyone would.

Who are you imagining?

I asked Claude for its response. Depending on your prior beliefs, you might be a little shocked.

Claude: These attributes describe two figures who, despite being ideological opposites, share a strikingly similar political playbook: Donald Trump (2016) and Zohran Mamdani (2025 NYC mayoral race).

Me back to Claude: Why would you think of these two candidates?

Claude: Because the description isn’t really a list of policies or an ideology—it’s a description of insurgent populism as a method, and these two are the cleanest left/right bookends of that method in recent memory.

The messages between Mamdani and Trump are clearly different; the underlying mechanics of their campaigning are really similar. So what does this mean for the next election? This primary is the next election, so I wanted to take a look at the early data and what it might indicate for future elections.

The Man or the Message?

There is a scene in Mad Men where they are recreating Ann-Margret’s rendition of Bye Bye Birdie as part of a new commercial campaign. Despite looking like Ann-Margret, sounding like Ann-Margret, and dancing like Ann-Margret, there is something off about the actress’s performance which does not hit. “It’s not Ann-Margret,” says Roger Sterling.

In 2023, Nate Silver wrote that “in general, Republicans have consistently done badly in the Trump era when Trump himself wasn’t running.” For Trump, it is very much about the man, not the message.

Silver doesn't attribute the GOP's struggles solely to his absence from the ballot. Much of the blame lies with the candidates themselves. They aren't Donald Trump (or Ann-Margret). They can say the things Trump says, and even win his public endorsement, but without the X-factor, that DJT charisma, they're often poor candidates, especially when they're pushing the unpopular policies Trump favors.

About Last Night

Now that we are in the first major election since Mamdani’s mayoral win, I want to see the extent of his political power. Does his base only come out to vote when he is on the ballot, or has his 2025 campaign excitement haloed into 2026?

This can’t be definitively answered tonight, and it is worth reevaluating throughout his tenure as mayor.

Here is how we stand as of 11:15 PM in some key races to give an early indicator (via the tally on the NY1 website).

You can see how much the vote shifted from Wiley in 2021 to Mamdani in 2025. This is likely due to a variety of factors, such as Mamdani being a better campaigner, worse 2021 macroeconomic factors post-Covid1, difference in voter issues such as crime in 20212, and general population loss in the City between then and now3.

The Mamdani levels were likely never attainable, but progressives should still be very happy. The results reverted toward the 2021 mean, but the needle has clearly shifted.

The true victory for Mamdani was in NY13. Espaillat, as we read last week, ran a weak campaign . Mamdani clearly handled Cuomo in this district so it was prime territory for a pickup which hadn’t had had a competitive race since 2016.

The key lesson, though, is what I’ve been preaching for a while: it’s far easier to win when you only run one candidate. Marketing resources combine, and the messaging gets simpler. You could argue 3 or 4 candidates were vying to be the progressive in the 2024 NY10 race, splitting the vote and allowing Goldman to win with 26%. This year, the race was Brad Lander's to lose, a candidate who, despite not being the incumbent, had far more winning experience in the region.

It should be noted:

1. Quite a few votes remain to be counted before the numbers are settled.

2. There’s a much bigger gap between left-voters and right-voters (i.e., Trump’s general elections) than in NYC primaries, where it’s left vs. further left. Winning by switching voters is relatively easier in these primaries than relying only on exciting the base.

3. Despite often hurting his party’s chances at the ballot box, Trump has accumulated enough power to become the party. The long game has worked out for him as an individual, even if in the short term it hasn’t meant aggregate wins for the party.

Much like President Trump can boast a near-perfect endorsement record (this actually isn't technically a lie), we'll likely see the same "smart endorsement" strategy from Mamdani: backing the likely winners. Notice that no progressive candidate was endorsed in NY12, which likely would have been a progressive loss. And despite being cross-endorsed with Mamdani in the mayoral race, Mamdani didn't return the favor to Michael Blake in the race to unseat incumbent Ritchie Torres. It will be interesting to watch when Mamdani's endorsements become less about the outcome and more about the candidate, the way AOC's have.

We've seen with DJT that it's his way or the unemployment line: he uses his GOP kingmaker power to shun the non-conformers. I'm not suggesting that's what's next for Mamdani, but tonight highlights the power he could wield in the not-so-distant future. This power could matter a great deal for how he helps in November, in future special elections, and in making his initiatives real.

We have a long way to go until the actual midterms this November. Is it only June?… Oh boy….

Until next time,

Adam from 2xParked

Subscribe now

Share

It feels like a non-stop parade this spring. We had the Israel Day Parade on May 31, Puerto Rico Day last Sunday, and NYC Pride coming up on the 28th. This doesn’t even include the impromptu parades after each Knicks victory.

If you happen to be one of the over 1 million participants in the celebrations today, there is a high probability you’ll have a great view of the back of the head of some dude 3–6 inches taller than you.

That means you will be staring at your phone a lot. As you try to edge around, you might as well be thinking about your next stop when the parade ends: the early voting polls. Make a plan!

It has been another loud campaign season, especially for several seats in Congress. With Knicks mania, the World Cup, and the world feeling like it's perpetually falling apart, it's understandable if you're one of the many who ignored the constant mailers or Instagram ads. Despite acknowledging the existence and the annoyance of the ads1, it still feels like the primary snuck up on me, so I consider myself one of those folk catching up before voting.

To help us out, I recruited my good friend Claude Opus 4.8:

1. Get Topics of Discussion: I first used the Spring 2026 Yale Youth Poll to narrow down potential generic topics of interest for voters.

2. Gather the Data: I copied and pasted all of the issues, platforms, and policy suggestions of each candidate in a competitive primary into their own document.
   

3. Ask Claude:

Hello, Claude. I am a voter in New York City.

I will paste information regarding the candidate’s priority and plan from their website. Provide one to five words to describe whether they have a plan in place to accomplish their goals.

I also want you to help me answer questions on the following topics. Please indicate if what is presented is actually a good idea, and provide 1-2 reasons why. (Note: please do not say what you think I want to hear. I am ok with hearing a candidate I like who has a bad plan or a candidate I don’t like who has a good plan).

Affordability: What will you do to make everyday life more affordable?

Healthcare: How would you make healthcare work better for people?

Democracy: How would you strengthen trust in our democracy?

Corruption: How will you keep government honest and accountable?

Jobs: What’s your plan to create good jobs?

Housing: How would you make housing more affordable?

Since many of you may not be voting in any of these districts, the rest of this article will be extremely boring. I'll start with my final parting conversation with Claude after I received my answers. It's what I found to be the most interesting part of this exercise, so I didn't want to leave it for the end where it might be ignored.

Well. It has happened; AI is taking over. I could not have said it any better myself.

For now…🥁🥁🥁…I present the 2xParked AI Guide to Voting in the Democratic Primaries (in alphabetical order by district).

Enjoy!

Adam from 2xParked

Subscribe now

Share

NY-7

Antonio Reynoso

Claude says…

Claire Valdez

Claude says…

Julie Won

Claude says…

NY-10

Dan Goldman

Claude says…

Brad Lander

Claude says…

NY-12

Alex Bores

Claude says…

George Conway

Missing. His website sucked. I will give you bonus points if you can find what he stands for on his campaign website.

Micah Lasher

Claude says…

Jack Schlossberg

Claude says…

NY-13

Darializa Avila Chevalier

Claude says…

Adriano Espaillat

Claude says…

Subscribe now

Share

In a city starving for a championship, the Knicks might represent the worst of our sports famine. The Jets have a longer drought, but the Jets have also been mostly pathetic for the greater part of the last 50 years. Meanwhile, the Islanders are back on Long Island, the Mets put on a better show because they don’t win, and the Rangers/Yankees/Giants have at least won something since the 90s.

Subscribe now

Share

The Knicks have had their fair share of Jets-like years, but they have bordered greatness too. Since 1973, they have made two finals, nearly broke up the first Jordan three-peat, and were valiantly eliminated at the finish line in multiple classic series against rivals like the Heat or the Pacers. Even at their worst, the ticket prices for nosebleeds could cover the medical costs for an ER visit for nosebleeds, and they were still sold out.

When the team began their run a few seasons ago, you could feel the simmer. Now that they have made it this far, the screams of “Go Knicks” start the moment you walk out for the subway on your morning commute and end well beyond your bedtime.

The Knicks might not be the most popular team in the City, but are they truly the buzziest team in NYC? Or is this just anecdotal evidence and/or recency bias speaking loudly as they often do?

We have some fun1 data to look at, so let’s take a quick unscientific investigation! Yahoo!

Looking at NYC OpenData, we can use a literal measurement for “buzz.” We can count the number of 311 noise complaints reported.

We can see there is seasonality, with more noise complaints correlated with summer, likely when more people are out on the streets. I will use average temperature as a proxy to reduce this seasonal impact.

As a measure of interest in a team, Google Search Index for searches in the New York, NY area is a good proxy as well.

Even if I go back to January 1, 2022, this does not leave us a whole lot of data points2 to play with3. This means narrowing down which NYC teams to include, so I set some strict criteria:

• New Yorkers must feel the teams are “New York City” teams: Teams must be considered NYC teams, even if they play in New Jersey. This eliminates the Devils, but not the Jets, Giants, or Red Bulls.

• There must be a reason at some point during the data set for buzz about the team: Teams must have won at least one playoff series during this time period to give fans a real sense a real chance of winning it all. I don’t want to extrapolate. Sorry, Nets, Jets, and Islanders.

• Teams must be universally popular: Teams must play in a league where the average finals TV rating exceeds 10 million viewers. This excludes the Liberty, NYFC, the Red Bulls, and all other professional teams.

This leaves the Knicks, Mets, Yankees, Giants, and Rangers.

I regressed number of 311 noise complaints by temperature and Google search index by team. This is what the coefficients looked like for the teams:

This means for every point increase in Google Search Index for each team, we expect this (the coefficient) many more 311 noise complaints in a given day. From this perspective, the Knicks come in as the second buzziest team in New York, right after the Mets. Maybe there is something to the blue and orange. Also LET’S GO METS!

I know Knicks fans are probably a bit cranky after last night, so before all you Knicks fans get angry with me, I must be honest: this model sucks. It really sucks. What is worse is that these are often the types of results which get published in non-peer reviewed articles as fact. Perhaps understanding why this model is bad is the learning moment to be aware of other bad linear regressions?

1. The variances for these coefficients are very high. This means that we have very little precision for these estimates. I excluded it for a reason to prove a point. Statistically, the variances are so high that we can’t even definitively feel confident the Knicks are buzzier than the Yankees in this model.

2. It is only a correlative study and not a causal study. It would have been amazing if we had the multi-verse where the only difference was the Google Searches. Maybe we do have multi-verses, but we sure don’t have that data.

3. I excluded a lot of potential variables which might actually be causal reasons which explain, or confound, the 311 complaints. I accounted for a big one (temperature explains 15% of the variance), but I am sure you are already thinking of 5 other things not considered.

4. There are also other statistical reasons why this model is bad.

Funny enough, though, if you asked me at the beginning of the article what the general order of these teams would be, the results are close to how my thumb is on the pulse. Maybe I should have done a Bayesian model with my gut as a prior? Eh, I think we reached our stats quota for one day. We are all tired this morning after watching last night’s game.

Either way, this does not mean we should not enjoy our team’s success. Just try and not to annoy the neighbors too much when you do.

Until next time,

Adam from 2xParked

Subscribe now

Share

Hello, data friends. It is Adam from 2xParked, and I am back from an extended vacation1.

If you ever needed a reminder of how great this city can be, I hope you were standing outside last night around 11:30 PM. The mass euphoria in a sea of blue and orange was something I had not experienced in my 16 years here. Sporting my Frank Ntilikina #11 jersey, I spent 10 minutes crossing a single city avenue, repeating the password "three more" to inch forward. When the Knicks are winning, the buzz in the city is a candle against the stresses of the day, even if only for a moment.

Since I last wrote2… The mayor did what? The president said what? The Knicks are still playing? The Mets, well, are still the Mets.

Upon vacationing to the birthplace of democracy, I started to get excited for the nationwide America 250 celebrations. With summer temps now in full throttle, I have a renewed sense of energy. I am reliving the first initiatives of the mayor. I am catching up on what the president has been saying. I have seen the arc of a January slump to a Knicks’ 1-0 Finals lead. The Mets are still the Mets.

Between then and now, I drafted a half dozen posts, but I deemed them too cynical to publish. I recently reread those unpublished posts. They upheld the integrity of 2xParked. They presented data regarding our beloved City and a probabilistic guide on how you can be a good data analyst. They were good bite-size pieces that preached on process, not editorial. They were not cynical. The data’s story just was not overly optimistic.

Even today, the story remains bleak. Nearly 1 in 3 New Yorkers feel our best days are behind us. According to a recent Siena poll, a majority of New Yorkers believe we are going in the wrong direction in terms of addressing big issues such as cost of living, affordable housing, affordable prices, crime reduction, and protecting constitutional rights. These are the types of issues where if a politician says they have a fix through catchy videos, charming quips, or social posts, you are being flat-out lied to.

This is why I am excited to return. Analyzing data, on top of voting, is my way of contributing to democracy. These are tough issues, but there is a lot of data to analyze whether a snazzy catchphrase will present a meaningfully good plan.

In an era where populism dominates both the left and the right, especially within the borders of our five boroughs, we the voters need to take responsibility for who we elect. As the ancient Greeks taught us thousands of years ago, this is a sacred power we should not take for granted. This requires work, and sometimes really hard work. If we find it easy, then we need to bear some responsibility if things go wrong. We need to put in the work.

I am optimistic we will. With the right data, we can think about what is best for the whole as opposed to the self. With the right data, we can adhere to rules of logic and find out how to balance emotion and vibe into our mental equation. With the right data, we can be willing to change our opinion when new information presents itself. I am excited to help guide you through the data.

What to Expect

One thing I learned from my past as “Adam from 2xParked” is to lean into the “Adam” part as opposed to the entity, “2xParked.” This allows me to be a bit more human, which will hopefully be more fun for me to write and for you to read.

Last month, I led a Jane’s Walk tour on the origins of baseball3. On my tour, participants learned about legendary Brooklyn resident, Baseball Hall of Famer, and sports journalist Henry Chadwick. Chadwick invented the modern box score, a small square in the newspaper which tells the story to non-attendees of a complete 9-inning game that is still used 150+ years later. Chadwick felt his duty as a journalist was to provide the facts, and that the readers could editorialize from those facts.

I feel that this is my duty as well. I will not tell you what to think. I will tell you what the data is, how you can interpret what it says, and point you toward opportunities to do your own research to fill in the blanks.

What I Expect from You

I value, most of all, your engagement. This is what makes it fun, and there are many ways to engage:

• Keep reading my posts! Knowing you are clicking and reading is enough for me to continue, and I am very appreciative.

• Subscribe if you have not yet! Oh look, a convenient button:

  Subscribe now

• Share with someone who has not subscribed! Oh look, other convenient buttons:

  Share

  Share 2xParked

• Email me at 2xParked@gmail.com. Many of my threads are from your ideas. I am always happy for you to pitch a question.

• Comment as well in the post.

• You can also follow me on X/Twitter and Instagram (@2xParked for both). Although I don’t use them much, I might someday. Who knows?

Up Next

I already have a few topics on the docket, but feel free to suggest more. Here is where my mind is now:

• Government price-controlled grocery stores: good, bad, or ugly idea?

• Should we expand or contract City Council?

• Are the Mets bad, unlucky, or cursed?

• NYC.gov department websites: an editorial review of their data story

• Poll reviews as we head to primary day and midterms.

Sprinkled in there will be lots of polls, sports, TV/movies, subway, Seinfeld, and food discussions, all from a data and NYC perspective.

A win in game 1 does not mean a series victory, but it does mean there is hope for one. We know NYC can be great; we have experienced some true highs. I want to look at the data so we can not just keep it that way but make it even better.

Hear from me soon,

Adam from 2xParked

Sadly, the fifth-grade voting bloc saw through my populist campaign. My opponent won on a “let's be nicer to everyone” ticket, which is a visionary, ambitious, and attainable slate.1

As we enter the 2025 general election campaign season, it is easier than ever for politicians to reinforce your existing beliefs. For democracy to work well, though, it requires the voter to be independent and thoughtful in discerning between vision and vibe. That can be difficult.

All politicians are saying they will make life more affordable with the swing of a magic wand. They are laying out their macroeconomic playbooks – from global tariffs to free bus rides – but they are only telling you the benefits, not the costs. There are always substantial costs.

We voters are the ultimate arbiters of which candidate will positively impact our city's macro-, micro-, and socioeconomic policies. Most Americans have never taken an economics course, and it shows. According to a November 2024 study in the Journal of Monetary Economics, only 13% of those surveyed have a good understanding of inflation and its causes, costs, and benefits2. Statistically speaking, you are likely not one of those 13%. It might be time to reopen or purchase a macroeconomic textbook.

The stakes are no longer better snacks3 as we begin our first competitive general mayoral election since 2009 when Bloomberg won his third term by 4.4 points4. According to Polymarket, Mamdani is the front-runner with an implied 73% chance of winning. This is big but not insurmountable for the other candidates.

Interestingly, this number has not changed since Mamdani won the primary. There are a significant number of voters who are less likely to favor Mamdani but who were not accounted for in the primaries. Although there have been many polls, this lack of movement in the line indicates these polls do not carry additional useful information, yet, on whether this group might impact the election.

As more polls are released, here are the data points I will be monitoring this summer:

• Dust Settle Principle: As I have stated many times, polling in a tight election lacks useful information until the "I don't know" bloc decides how — or if — they are voting. In recent polls, the undecided rate is 10-20%, so decisions are pending and poll usefulness is low.

• Sliwa Polling: The GOP primary winner is polling at around 20%. In a normal NYC general election, we can expect a Republican candidate to get 30% of the vote. If he continues to poll less than 30%, where is that other vote going?

• Paths to Victory: Game theory is brought to life as we analyze Adams and Cuomo. Although both candidates aim to attract the moderate and independent votes, Adams is a more attractive candidate for liberal Republicans while Cuomo is for moderate-liberal Democrats. For one candidate to win, the other has to drop out. How much will ego compete with wanting to defeat Mamdani?

• Donald Trump “Endorsement”: Earlier this month, Trump gave apparent support for Adams, but that goodwill has been damaged with the most recent lawsuit. How does this roller coaster of a relationship correlate with Adams receiving GOP voter support?

• Youth Voting: Mamdani’s populist messaging excited the youth vote to register and vote for the Democratic primary. Some of the polling cross tabs might help us understand how many of these voters were incremental (i.e. would not have voted vs would have voted as “independents” in November) and what the ceiling is for his youth support.

Mamdani is the leader of the pack, but if anyone says “it’s over” at this point, they either know something you do not know or they are not nuanced probabilistic thinkers like you. A lot can happen in the next three months. Three months prior to June's primary, Cuomo was at 70% according to Polymarket. Three months prior to the November election, Harris and Trump were seen as tied. It is still close enough for endorsements, scandals, and macroeconomics to throw a wrench in the numbers.

2xParked will keep you informed on how things stand, but it is up to you to inform yourself on how things should stand. Even if you feel like others are not doing the homework, you should still aim to be smarter than a fifth grader.

In the final season of Succession, Roman Roy, holding his phone after the news of his media mogul father CEO’s passing had gone public, notes a visual drop in the company’s stock price. “There he is. That… is dad.”

Last week the then 1st-place Mets were swept by their publicly traded rivals, the Atlanta Braves. The Braves holding stock (BATRA) increased 9.0% after the series. There it is. That… is the Mets.

As you flip between the Mets attempt to avenge their losses against the Braves and NY1 election coverage tonight, here are some last nuggets of 2xParked wisdom:

Share

Subscribe now

1. Tonight’s leading candidate will not necessarily be the winning candidate. Assuming we get a fairly high tally by the time we go to bed, I estimate an 82% chance that tonight’s leading candidate will be the eventual winner. Although being in the driver’s seat is an optimal position, it is by no means a guaranteed winning position. This is essentially the same odds of needing a 1-5 on a 6-sided dice to win. You like your chances, but you also have rolled a lot of 6’s in your life.
   

2. We likely will not find out the winner until early July. I estimate that there is a 9% chance that the election gets called tonight. A candidate will likely need to exceed 43% of the vote in the first round to have the AP call the election before all votes are counted.
   
   If no candidate gets over 50% of the vote — a 99% chance of that happening — then we will have to wait until all ballots are in to begin the ranked choice voting count. That will not start until July 1.
   

3. Tonight’s winner is not receiving the golden key to Gracie Mansion. Unlike the last few primary elections where it was a forgone conclusion that the democratic primary winner would win the election, that is not the case in 2025.
   
   It is fair to assume that likely-GOP candidate Curtis Sliwa will not win the general election, but November’s election could be a tight competition between the elected Dem nominee, the incumbent mayor, and, potentially, a former governor. Sliwa, serving as a de facto 3rd (or 4th) party candidate, could really throw a wrench into things as well.

Final Pre-Election MayorModel

A new Emerson poll was released yesterday with Mamdani on top of Cuomo. This is the first real poll with Mamdani projected to win.

• If you are pro-Mamdani: The most interesting aspect of this poll is that it is also the first one to have a low undecided rate (4%). We have seen in past polls where there can be wild shifts in polling with high undecided rates. As I have said before, high undecided rate means high variance in results. Low means the results will likely be more stable.

• If you are pro-Cuomo: This poll only includes voters who (1) have already voted and (2) are “very likely” to vote. The data does not include voters who are “somewhat likely” to vote or “not likely.” Standard practice is to model out who will actually vote (usually > 0). In the last Emerson poll, roughly 14% of voters were included in these buckets. This means that this poll is likely biased towards partisan and early voters, which might be a reason for the low undecided rate and the high Mamdani rate.

• If you want the final pre-election MayorModel: Of course, this is not accounting for the heat tomorrow and any polls released after 10PM (I have a bed time). You can use your only mental math to see how that might impact things.

Final Thoughts

If you have not voted yet, go vote. Stay cool tomorrow. Bring a few bottles of water, sunscreen, and an umbrella for shade to your voting station.

If you need to catch up on where we stand, check out the past couple weeks of pre-election coverage at 2xParked:

• What could Brad Lander’s role be in this election?

• Be weary of the data shared to you.

• What data to trust and not trust

• What does early voting say about tonight?

And remember, let’s go Mets tonight!

Share

Subscribe now

Last week, I wrote Brad Lander was the X-factor in this election. This week, he cemented that status.

The NY Times could not help itself by giving him an unofficial endorsement. In a more surprising move, the NY Times also wrote “we do not believe that Mr. Mamdani deserves a spot on New Yorkers’ ballots.” Between the NYT unofficial endorsement, the anti-endorsement of his progressive rival, Lander’s viral video of being arrested by ICE, and 700ish thousand more votes to be had, this might be the opening Brad Lander needs to cause chaos.

Here are the latest updates from the MayorModel, which have not accounted for these new Lander developments:

Last week I also provided tips on what data to consider during early voting. Here are updates on what I have seen in regard to my stated tenets.

Consider media or university sponsored polls.

Marist University released a poll this week with Cuomo finishing up 55-45 against Mamdani. This is what major news organizations had to say when you google search this poll:

Headline writers see what they want to see. This is why 2xParked exists.

The gap has indeed closed since the prior Marist Poll in May, but in that poll, the undecided rate was a whopping 17% and full of unknown. It is interesting in the cross-tabs of this recent poll that the Bronx, Manhattan, Staten Island, and Queens overwhelmingly support Cuomo while Brooklyn overwhelmingly supports Mamdani. This is similar to what we saw in 2021 with Maya Wiley vs Garcia/Adams. Unlike Mamdani, Wiley had the disadvantage of not receiving the progressive campaign support —i.e. AOC endorsement — until too late. With this advantage, Mamdani either needs an exceptional turnout from Bushwick/Park Slope or over-performance in the other boroughs to close ground.

I was curious what polling a week prior to election day meant in terms of historical context. I looked at the university/media polls in prior primaries issued roughly a week before the election and how they compared to actual results.

I was hoping to see an obvious pattern, but nothing stands out. There is almost statistically no correlation between polls and poll misses. What is obvious is that the polling error exceeds the stated error of the polls. This Marist poll of +/-4.3% might be considerably wider in reality.

Consider the undecided vote in the polls.

The undecided is still 11% in this Marist poll, which is weirdly high. In the past, it was 6% at this point. This will further inflate variance and add unpredictability when comparing polls to actuals next Tuesday. It is a huge reason why Mamdani’s chances are as high as they are in the MayorModel.

Consider betting markets.

On the evening I wrote to ignore candidate sponsored polls, Cuomo’s betting market chances dropped below 60%. Now it is back up to 80%. Unless something drastically pops up in the news, it will remain 75-85%, which I think is a fair number (see my MayorModel). As I wrote, that 60% was due to untrustworthy data sources being used to trade on the candidate’s stock and the market would predictably reset.

Ignore early voting totals.

Early voting totals have doubled in 2025 compared to 2021. This is fact. This is all we know as fact. We do not know the why. I present a few of my perfectly plausible hypotheses which support or oppose your favored candidate depending on your interpretation:

• Early voting is becoming a more established part of our NYC voting culture. We forget that it has only been around a few years.

• With Juneteenth this Thursday — a day off of work for many in the City— many folks are taking a long weekend and using early voting as an opportunity for convenience.

• There is more excitement in the overall race — perhaps due to the candidates or it not being 2021 in the shadow of Covid — meaning more people are excited to vote early. This may or may not mean more people are voting overall.

• There is more excitement for an individual candidate. This may or may not mean more people are voting overall.

• There is more messaging from candidates to vote early.

Key takeaways from all of this

• Vote

• Nothing is close to being decided

• Follow 2xParked for more updates

Subscribe now

Share

Happy Early Voting Opening Day. Time to wake up and follow your voting plan — for those of you voting.

This is the third of my pre-election series. For those of you who need a reminder:

1. I analyzed the third candidate in this two horse race and how decisions surrounding his campaign might have great implications.

2. I reminded you to be critical as you separate facts from noise.

There is going to be a lot of data released between now and election day. Here are tips to sound your smartest when talking election over the next week:

• Consider media or university sponsored polls. Any poll which is conducted by a candidate, a close ally, or a close ally group is worth ignoring.

• Ignore early voting exit polling. This is not a knock on exit polling. Rather, most media outlets will not release poll influencing exit polls until after voting closes. If poll data has been released, you likely will not trust the data’s source.

• Consider the undecided vote in the polls. At this point in 2021, there were undecided rates of <10%. This year we are still seeing >10%. The more undecided voters, the higher the chance of chaos in the results.

• Ignore early voting totals. Early voting tallies can be an indicator of how an election will turn out, but we usually don’t know how until after the election. There are many reasons why a voter votes early. Without hindsight, it is near impossible to pinpoint the causal reasons. Somehow both low or high early vote tallies will favor your candidate (i.e. confirmation bias). Most people still vote on election day, so its not worth getting worked up over early voting totals.

• Consider betting markets. I use betting markets to see if there are drastic movements in the line. If I see a large drop or gain, I google news search that candidate to find the cause. It only takes one piece of information to change the line, so a cause should be easy to find. If the cause of the market change does not feel like a big deal, then it’s alright to assume bettors are overreacting. You have your own internal MayorModel.

• Ignore straw polling. There is less scientific rigor when it comes to reporting a straw poll than an exit poll. Swipe left on these.

• Ignore any data from a candidate’s camp. Every candidate on election day conveniently leaks that there have been lots of positive surprises in turnout. Remember in 2016 when there was early data from Clinton’s camp that, given the early success, Georgia was in play?

• Consider 2xParked. I will do my best to keep you posted as data rolls in.

If a soda company commissioned a study that said “sugar is healthy,” would you believe it? No, you probably wouldn’t.

Why not? You know the soda company has ulterior motives.

If a candidate sponsored poll gets released publicly, should you pay attention to it? No.

Why not? There are ulterior motives. As Nate Silver wrote, “they add more noise than signals.”

So what should I think about this poll? Ignore it. It was sponsored by comptroller candidate Justin Brannan, a close candidate to Mamdani. It might be wrong, it might be biased, or it might be right. I do not know, and there is no way of knowing until after the election. The same goes for the recent Cuomo released poll where he is up quite a bit. Ignore them. Do not let them become part of your priors. They are noise.

So is there a chance Mamdani is surging? There is a chance, but there is also a chance he isn’t. I said ignore internal or candidate sponsored polls.

Should Cuomo be worried? Sure, all candidates should be worried. My latest model had Mamdani with a 28% chance of winning the primary. Although Cuomo is still the favorite, 28% is still a scary high unsafe number for him. I will say it again: we, as the public, should ignore this and all other candidate sponsored polls.

So is there anything I can learn for the mayoral race? Not in the numbers. But… as I wrote yesterday, multiple candidates running on the progressive platform has hurt Mamdani’s chances. Releasing these numbers to Politico is actually a really smart marketing play to try and make this a true two-horse race. It might be too late — there is only so much money which can be earned and spent in these fleeting days — but at the very least it is a headline grabber. The release of this poll has the potential to have the impact to cause the numbers to shift after the fact by good public relation marketing.

So there really is nothing in the numbers? This poll was essentially taken a week or so before polls open for a comptroller candidate, and it is still reporting 44% undecided in the comptroller race. This is an interesting topic warranting its own post. Although I don’t trust that number — as I said I am ignoring this poll — we saw similar high undecided polling late in 2021 for comptroller. Why is there so little attention given to a person of great power and great proximity to power? Are voters making analytical decisions or random selections?

What lessons can I learn? The number one lesson of polling is to look at the source. In this case, the funding source is Justin Brannan. Zohran Mamdani has been an active supporter of Brannan’s campaign. Although PPP is a highly rated polling company (grade A- by Nate Silver), it still no different than Harvard doing a study sponsored by a soda company on the health benefits of sugar.

Fans of Mamdani can scream “!!!”. Fans of Cuomo can yell back “hmph.” Fans of Lander and Adams can say whatever they want. Like this poll, they would be creating a lot of noise.

Now for an AI generated picture of a dog and their family voting for an election in NYC.

We are just a few days from polls opening, so I am straight business. No silly AI generated picture based off a prompt like “draw a cat voting with their family at a voting station in New York City.1” No winded analysis about how REAL ID sign ups might impact the election due to an influx of new registered voters.2 No talking of the glory of the Mets or the shame of the Knicks.3

Nope. Pure 100% no-nonsense business. Here is where the MayorModel stands today in terms of 1st place votes:

Here are the probabilities of winning as told by the MayorModel:

Essentially, if you roll a six-sided dice and you get 1-2-3-4 it will be Andrew Cuomo and if you roll 5-6 it will be Zohran Mamdani.

There has been chatter of Mamdani momentum, especially as the the prediction markets have him up to 27% when 3 weeks ago he was at 6%. I mostly believe this is a market correction as opposed to momentum.

When I last wrote a few weeks ago, the MayorModel had Cuomo at 77% and Mamdani at 20% even though prediction markets had it 90/6 — which I said was silly at the time. 77% and 72% are not substantially different from one another. Additionally, it is now clear that Mamdani, not Brad Lander, is the progressive candidate of choice for this election. As late as April, both Lander and Mamdani were assigned near similar odds according Polymarket.

Brad Lander is an interesting candidate to hypothesize about. Since February, it has been (1) Cuomo, (2) Mamdani, and (3) Lander in the polls. In other universes, that might not be the situation.

Subscribe now

Share

What if the New York Times endorsed a candidate?

The Times might have endorsed Andrew Cuomo, especially since most voters believe he is the best candidate to stand up to Donald Trump. The Times endorsed Cuomo over Cynthia Nixon in 2018 for this very reason. He also did not receive the endorsement from the Times in 2014 when he ran against Zephyr Teachout though.

The Times might have also endorsed Zohran Mamdani, a member of the DSA who is considered the most progressive candidate. We have seen in the past, with endorsements of Jumaane Williams for Lieutenant Governor in 2018, that the paper is not afraid to veer left with its picks. The Times has not ventured this far left in an executive #1 role recently though.

The obvious endorsement would have been Brad Lander. Lander is both very left, earning the Working Family Party #2 endorsement, and very established, serving in City government as an elected politician since 2009.

Lander received the NY Times endorsement for Comptroller in 2021, and it is hard to believe it was not a driver for his victory. Around the time of the endorsement, Lander was polling at 13% in 1st place votes, down considerably to Corey Johnson (21%). A week after the endorsement, Lander shot up to a strong first with 26%.

We also saw 2021 mayoral candidate Kathryn Garcia went from a pool of third place candidates at 6-10% to solid second place of 15+% after her Times endorsement. If Lander had received a similar bump, he might have been neck-and-neck with Mamdani for second with a potential path to victory.

What if Brad Lander had dropped out early?

The same could be asked of Adrienne Adams and Zellnor Myrie.

For the second consecutive mayoral election, there have been multiple progressive candidates running for the same spot. The messaging with RCV has been that you should “vote for us” as opposed to “vote for me.”

In marketing terms, this makes it more confusing to customers. Messaging is no longer simple and unified. The complexity causes friction in analyzing and choosing the best candidate. Too many choices can also confuse a customer and cause, as some researchers call it, “brain freeze.”

Additionally, the two major resources — time and money — are split. Instead of newspapers/X/NY1 covering one of the candidates, they are forced to split coverage. Instead of one source of funding which can be converted into unified advertisements and a stronger ground game, it is shared across all the candidates. Instead of being down 55-45 in polling, which is a better known baseline by more popular presidential election standards, we are seeing difficult-to-interpret quantities like 25% and 11%.

You could argue that Lander’s presence brought in incremental voters which could steer towards Mamdani, but most downstream Lander polling has only slightly favored Mamdani.

This is not to say Mamdani and progressives would be a mayoral champion in this primary had Lander dropped out, but their chances would have been much stronger.

Now What

As polls change and tallies are revealed, 2xParked will keep you posted on what you need to know. In the meantime, find a good time to vote between June 14 and June 24, locate your polling site, and support your local newsletters.

Subscribe now

Share

1

Under Counting Overseas

As June 24 approaches, there were a couple of interesting elections overseas which might provide insights for our mayor election.

1. Conclave election of Pope Leo XIV: As we awaited the white smoke out of Vatican City, Robert Prevost had 1.5% odds according to Polymarket at 8:00 AM yesterday. By the afternoon, it was announced he would be the first American pope.
   
   As I wrote a few weeks ago, good bettors might have an edge in data, but most bettors are analyzing the same data we all have in an “optimal” way. In the election of the pope, one of the most secretive processes, there is not a lot of available data beyond journalistic prognostications.
   
   Open democratic elections such as the mayoral election have polling data. There are also some implied correlated voting trends with macroeconomic factors. There is also gut feeling. That is not a lot of data.
   

2. Goldstein election of Tim Wilson: Zoe Daniel, running for re-election of the Melbourne Seat of Goldstein in the Australian House of Representatives, gave a victory speech after the Australia Broadcasting Corporation said her reelection was basically secured last weekend. A few days later, challenger and former seat holder Tim Wilson was the victor.
   
   Australia is a veteran to RCV. The greatest lesson to be learned is that people are not always politically driven. Countless studies have proven this. Despite mayoral candidates saying “vote for us” as opposed to “vote for me” — which frankly is confusing messaging — voters are nuanced. They value more than political beliefs when judging their political leaders. It adds chaos to the election process.

   Subscribe now

When I see semi-recent polls — such as the Siena College one with 20% undecided — my instinct says the 88% for Andrew Cuomo (as of 5/8/25) is too aggressive. 20% undecided means that the election is still not top of mind for voters. Voters are likely both undecided on if they will vote along with who they will vote for. Unless Cuomo starts approaching consistent 1st round polling in the mid 40s% with undecideds < 10%, I would be skeptical of >88% chances.

What’s the Deal with …?

I have two camps of readers. One faction screams “how is this going to impact the mayoral race?” The other hollers for “more Seinfeld.” Recall that non-fat yogurt is what cost Dinkins re-election in 1993.

I answered the age old question: if our mayoral candidates were Seinfeld characters, who would they be?

I developed two data sets: one with quotes of all the Seinfeld characters and the other with speeches + interview transcripts + op eds from the mayoral candidates.

I was able to analyze the term frequency (i.e. how often a word appears) and the inverse document frequency (i.e. how rarely a word is used). This allows me identify the uniqueness of each character/candidate’s communication style. I then compared each major candidate (> 1% in polling) to each major character (>100 lines) to see how similar they are based on their comms. I filled a call sheet by limiting to one character.

For those of you not Seinfeld fans, here is the Chat GPT-4o summary of why each Seinfeld character would make a great mayor.

I will let you decide if these character descriptions are apt comparisons to their candidate counterparts.

The most interesting part of doing this exercise is that Jerry and George were the highest matching characters on average. Jerry’s calmness combined with George’s full range of emotion equates to one real human and one cartoon character. (For those of you wondering, the least similar characters were Kenny Bania and David Puddy).

MayorModel

Now that Eric Adams has dropped out of the democratic primary race, we finally have polls to reflect this change.

A recent Honan poll has Cuomo earning 45% in the first round. I suspect this is the reason for optimism in the prediction markets — and the MayorModel. I will note that Honan was an independent pollster in 2021. When other polls were giving Maya Wiley 16-21%, Honan had her at 7%. She finished with 21%. When other pollsters were giving Andrew Yang 13-20%, Honan had him at 21%. He finished with 12%. It is good for a pollster to be independent, and Honan Strategy Group certainly has a history of not following the herd.

Even without this poll, Cuomo’s numbers are looking good, but a lot can happen in a month and a half. In 2013, de Blasio was polling in the teens around this point before winning the primary.

Enjoy your weekend, all. Get out there and love every minute of it!

Share

Subscribe now

This past January, there was a magnitude 2.4 earthquake near Paramus. You probably did not notice. It was super cold and we were in simpler times, four days into Trump’s second term.

I bet New Yorkers felt the shake when the first domino fell in the mayoral election1.2 Mayor Adams will not be running in the Democratic Party primary, running instead as an independent. This is not unprecedented in politics, but was it wise? 2xParked investigates!

Was it a Good Move?

Real talk: if the election were held today, I can confidently say Mayor Adams would not win the primary.

It is difficult to see a path of victory through the Democratic Party primary. Our model had Mayor Adams with a < 1% chance of winning. In the latest RCV polls, he was receiving < 20% of the distributed downstream vote. This holds with the Honan survey results where 8 in 10 Democrats would not support him no matter what. He is a known commodity, not a wild card filled with variance.

Is there a Path to Victory?

Current polling is bad, but this delay affords Mayor Adams an additional 4+ months to rebuild his constituency. The path to victory will not be easy. Let’s make some broad — and fairly aggressive — assumptions to highlight the work required for his campaign.

Below are the last three major city-wide races since Biden’s election in 2020. This gives us a good primer for what a theoretical two-party election would look like. There was thought that the 2024 results might be a red wave (since ‘24 Harris under-performed ‘20 Biden), but 2024 might be more indicative of when New Yorkers do not have enthusiasm for a race, like most off-cycle elections.

Subscribe now

What if Gov. Cuomo Wins the Dem Nomination?

Adams will be in trouble.

When included in a recent general election poll against Cuomo, he was down 32 points. In a January Manhattan Institute Poll, Cuomo and Adams faced off at the end of the RCV, with Cuomo winning 70% of the vote. In more recent polls, Cuomo is polling better and Adams is polling worse. I see the 70/30 split as a best case scenario. This is what that would look like if the Democratic vote were split that way:

Adams still needs to make major gains, and there are not many avenues to do that. He would either need to win a majority of the Democratic vote — unlikely with the nomination of one of the more moderate candidates— or win a large chunk of the Republican vote. In the crosstabs — which are extremely low sample size so don’t read too much into them — he was not winning a whole lot of GOP votes either compared to Cuomo.

What if Gov. Cuomo Loses the Dem Nomination?

The door is creaking open.

Since most of the other nominees are progressive, moderates in NYC will have to make a sub-optimal choice: Progressive, Adams, or GOP.

In the polls with RCV, when Adams was eliminated, Cuomo consistently received ~75% of Adams votes. If we assume this to be a reciprocal relationship and Adams retains all of his first place votes, Adams will receive about 37% of the Democratic votes. Here is what that would look like in terms of the general election:

Although slightly better — closing the gap from -28% to -19% — Adams has other levers to play with now. Trump currently has a ~12% disapproval rating among Republican voters. If a MAGA leaning candidate now gets the GOP nod, and all dissatisfied Trump voters go the more moderate former Dem Adams, he closes the gap to -14%.

Like I mentioned, there is a lot of time to improve those numbers. What if Adams won all of his Democratic polled first place votes and Cuomo’s first place votes? What if tariffs cause even more frustration among GOP, and what if that causes them to match the high disapproval from DJT Term 1 of ~15%:

Now it is close (-1%!). We know polls were biased against Trump by about 3 points in 2024. Many believe this might represent his true base who only come out to vote for him. What if Adams has a 3% base of independents who will only vote for him and no one else?

+2%!

Summary, Please

Admittedly, this is a very crude simulation, but I wanted to prove a point.

There are a lot of “what ifs” that have to happen for Adams to be re-elected. I did not even pretend to understand the independent votes and I assumed a lot of best-case scenarios.

A lot can happen in 7 months though. It is too early to count him out yet, especially if the following real possibilities come true:

1. Progressive candidate wins Democratic Primary AND

2. Trump and GOP policies become even more unpopular AND

3. Adams ignites his base to return to the polls AND

4. The right amount of luck.

We are just getting started.

Subscribe now

Share

Bracket busted? No problem.

Ghost busted? Not my problem.

City busted? Houston, we have a problem.

We are many rounds away from narrowing down our final four candidates for mayor, but building on what I wrote last week regarding betting markets, you were due insights from our first MayorModel. I promise I will write other content, but since we are in election season and elections have fun data, 2xParked will continue to keep you ahead of the game.

MayorModel: First Results

Remember, these are estimated —not even real — probabilities so they should not be used in the same sentence as “absolute truth.” These results are a fun way of seeing the city holistically on a potential election night. They should not, under any circumstance, be used as betting advice.

If nothing is 0% or 100%, a lot can, and likely will, change. I will provide updates and insights when something changes. Here are a few initial observations:

• Given the polling, where Gov. Cuomo is at 35-45% for first place ballots, it should be no surprise he is the leader out of the gate.

• A question I asked last year was how progressives will handle this race. RCV endorsements are fun and inoffensive, but politics are not the sole driver for ranking candidates. Having one candidate with 30% creates a more publicly known candidate than three with 10%, so will we see consolidation? Right now Zohran Mamdani has the lead among progressive candidates, but as we can see below, there is a real opportunity for another to rise. Who might that be?

  

  

• Eric Adams has a tough road ahead. This should not be a surprise given 20% favorability and that 56% of New Yorkers think he should resign. He still has some time to heal his polling, but the clock is ticking.

• These numbers strongly align with what is reported on the betting market. This is neither a prerequisite nor a validation of my model, but it might point to bettors getting similar results from similar types of models.

Under the Hood

This should not feel like it was generated in a black box, so I have included a high level overview of how the MayorModel works:

Although Nate Silver’s presidential model methodology was an inspiration, there are key challenges I face in this unique election:

• I Have Less Data. Presidential elections have decades of data from a plethora of polls at a state and national level. I only have data as far back as 2009.

• Less Data = More Bias. I have to make assumptions such as what techniques I should use and what data I should include. Although I am doing what I feel reduces bias, any choice I make will have a grand impact.

• Undecideds are Undecided. In presidential elections, even at the swing state level, the undecided vote is generally < 5%. The undecided vote is 15-20% at present, which is what it usually is at this time. A candidate can be disproportionately impacted by something as small as a NY Times endorsement.

• Rank Choice Voting. Not only am I predicting 1st place ballots, I have to predict downstream rank choice voting. This adds another level of unpredictability, little data, and more assumptions.

Til Next Time

This model is far from perfect. There are models and models of models adding levels of uncertainty. I will do my best to discern what is real vs model assumption vs debatable.

In the meantime, go out and enjoy future 70+ degree sunny days and support your local newsletters.

I can be found at X/Twitter and Instagram @2xParked

With allergy season upon us, I wish you a preemptive gesundheit due to the dust and the dander or that pesky grass pollen. Or maybe, your sneezing is an adverse reaction to the continuation of a decade long election conversation in New York City.

Less than 6 months into the Trump administration, NYC will be holding its primaries for mayor. Given the trend of NYC voters last fall, it is no guarantee that the winner of the Democratic Party primary will be elected mayor. The winner should be seen as a favorite though.

Judging who is the “favorite” can be quantified by models – such as the 2xParked one soon to be updated– which translate polling data into odds. Another “favorite” interpretation is through betting markets, which is what 2xParked will be looking at today.

What do the bettors say?

Polymarket now allows betting on the Democratic Party primary for NYC mayor, with Gov. Andrew Cuomo leading the way at 75% (as of Monday March 24).

Is this actually predictive?

There are many studies proving that aggregating independent expert prognostications is usually better at predicting probabilities of future events than a singular model. Models are subject to bias from data selection, modeling technique, and their underlying assumptions and use. Aggregating a set of independently constructed models -- which could include data-based or expert opinion experience based models -- will likely outperform any individual model in the long run due to a reduction in bias impact.

There is an argument that can be made these odds are made from a panel of experts predicting the future.

Share

Subscribe now

Bettors have money on the line, so they have stakes and incentives that talking heads and online trolls do not have. Although they might not be “experts” in the sense of being labeled as political scientists or analysts, there is likely a chance that bettors, on aggregate, feel more confident than the average person in beating the market odds to make a profit.

Similar to sports books, there is incentive from prediction markets to construct the best odds to (1) encourage people to bet, (2) maximize its profits, and (3) minimize risk. Prediction markets also utilize data from betting patterns to change the odds on a dime’s notice to accomplish its objectives.

In sports gambling, it has proven to be difficult to make predictable and sustainable profits. Prediction markets are no different. The odds often represent prediction.

Prediction markets are the end all be all?

Although informative, there are a few things to be wary of.

1. Probabilities do not equal fact. The prediction markets had Trump aggressively winning over Harris in 2024. These same markets also had Trump destroying Biden with near certainty late on election night 2020 before bettors realized there were uncounted votes in swing states. Unless something is a definitive fact (0% or 100%), there is still a chance.

2. The incentive structure when creating odds is not to be right. The incentive is for bettors to make money and for the marketplace to make money. Although the overlap is often one-to-one, in a small market like this — where only $6M has been bet so far — one or two very large bets can manipulate the odds drastically.

3. Correlation is not causation: our favorite expression. The betting lines are set in a way to monetize bettors’ (and non-US based bettors at that) sentiment. The probabilities are only then implied based off the betting lines. Without knowing the inputs of all the bettors, there is little obvious inherent causal relationship between the odds what will happen.

What does this mean for me, personally?

None of this is meant be used as financial or betting advice. Rather, it is a guide to make you sound smarter at your Upper East Side soirees or be used as incremental data to your personal peaked interest and analyses. Here are a few closing points:

1. The race is not over until the votes are counted, so don’t use odds as an excuse not to vote.

2. Saying “the betting market was right” is a really stupid thing to say. Ask instead, “why were the odds from [experts, friends, etc.] so much [lower/higher] than the betting markets?”

3. Keep supporting your local news and newsletters. The best thing for you is to be informed so you can make the best decision for our City at the polls.

Share

Subscribe now

This is most evident in baseball, which was born, sculpted, and mastered in New York City. Despite annually being home to two of the highest payrolls, memories of past glory have faded.

As I took time off my social schedule to watch the Mets playoff run, I explained to friends, family, and colleagues that “this is literally a once in a decade occurrence.” With a median age of 38.8 in New York City, half of all residents have zero memory of a Mets World Series victory.

After both New York teams got steamrolled by a former New York team, is there a chance we won’t ever see a World Series champion in New York City for the rest of our lifetimes? As we approach the spooky season (Halloween or Election Day, you choose), 2xParked aims to answer this spooky question

Whether it is baseball, football, basketball, or hockey, there are (1) a lot of teams in each league and (2) each team has the same objective: winning.

MLB has 30 teams. If every team’s success in a given season is completely random, each team has a 1 in 30 (3.3%) chance of winning a championship. Over the course of our life’s remainder, the odds of us seeing our favorite MLB team win — assuming there is no expansion — is not a guarantee. In the next 50 years, the probability of us not seeing our favorite team win a World Series would be roughly 18%. That is basically the same as not rolling a “1” on a standard single six-faced dice.

Baseball has no salary cap. A team can increase or decrease its odds of winning by spending relatively more or less on talent than it’s competition. Since 2011, 14 of the 15 World Series winners have had payrolls in the top half of the league, and 6 of the 15 have been in the top 5 — including 2024.

New York City is a pressure-filled expensive place, and our teams are expected to spend more. Over the past decade, the Yankees have consistently been a top-3 spender and the Mets have been a top-10. When we account for spending more — even if ownership or ownership philosophy changes — the Mets and the Yankees should have a higher than average chance of winning. If we assume the correlation between spend and likelihood to win is causal, Yankees would have a roughly 9.6% chance and the Mets would have a 7.2% chance of winning a championship each season in the future as opposed to 3.3%. This is what their future winning curves look like over time:

Our likely chances of seeing our favorite NYC team winning are much higher than a random team, but there still is a chance they won’t win.

I looked at the Social Security Administration actuarial life table and combined with these percentages to provide the likelihood of seeing a Mets or Yankees championships in the remainder of our lifetimes. (Note: I split by male and female since females generally live longer).

For the median New Yorker (38.8), there is roughly a 95% chance of seeing a Mets World Series win and a 98% chance of seeing a Yankees victory. For many in data analyses community, 95% chance is good enough. For others, including most Mets fans, this might feel like doom.

As you cast your ballot on Tuesday, remember that if a candidate says they will bring home a championship for your favorite team during their term, they clearly are not a Mets or Yankees or statistics fan.

Note: If you are interested in more 2xParked content, you can now follow on Instagram @2xParked.

One bubble bursting question remains for New Yorkers: will anyone present a challenge to Mayor Eric Adams?

There is ambition to have a competitive primary. If ambition translates into donors, 2xParked will be your source for data insights on the 2025 NYC mayoral election. (Additionally, you can follow on Instagram or X/Twitter for more 2xParked content.)

MayorModel 2.0

Years after introducing the MayorModel, I have made improvements to make sure we can better follow a contested 2025 election.

1. Better Model! The biggest improvement is another year of data. This is especially important when considering RCV which was new in 2021. Additionally, more data points and more knowledge allowed me to tidy up prior data assumptions, resulting in a stronger model.

2. More Updates! I have cleaned up my code. This means more and quicker updates. Remember, Instagram and Twitter/X (@2xParked for both) now exist so your inbox will not be completely filled with every news. Share this newsletter for more in depth commentary.

   Share 2xParked

3. More Insights! I plan to dig deeper into the data, give cleaner looks at the landscape, and keep you ahead of the game.

   

Five Big Questions Heading into 2025

2021 was not my first contested primary, but it was the first one with the MayorModel. Here are few of my biggest questions heading into 2025:

1. Who will get endorsed by the Times? In 2021, Kathryn Garcia had a strong hold in the middle of the candidate table when the NY Times Editorial Board was the NOS to her campaign. A Times endorsement is not a cheat code, but it certainly was a factor in Garcia winning Manhattan.

2. Who will be the “progressive” candidate? The recent NYC progressive campaign philosophy has been to emphasize policy over candidacy, but in highly contested larger elections, philosophy has had a 30-40% cap on New York’s biggest stages. That does not mean they can’t break through; Bill de Blasio ran a masterful campaign in 2013. It might mean they quickly converge on a singular candidate.

3. What lessons were learned on Ranked Choice Voting? RCV helped Kathryn Garcia nearly close a 100k first round voting gap, but when Maya Wiley’s votes were released heading into the final round, 75k votes went to neither Adams nor Garcia. Considering Garcia lost by only 7k votes and she won 3/4 of Wiley’s distributed votes, there might have been missed opportunity had she diverted some of those 75k. How will candidates handle campaigning and cross-endorsements this time around — and will voters notice?

4. How will candidates get out on the streets? Remember in 2021, we were still very much restricted by Covid. Andrew Yang was the first, and at some points the one only, candidate to hit the street, giving him an early edge in polling. Most of the candidates campaigned local, most often from their — sometimes very nice — apartments. In 2013, you could not walk more than 10 blocks without running into a candidate. Will 2025 bring back the on-the-streets campaign traffic?

   

5. What should we consider with polling? Monitor the “undecided” vote. We might have an interest in the election, but most New Yorkers need a break from politics. We have seen the undecided vote for the primary does not fall under 10% until just a few weeks prior to the election. The decline in undecided vote can be correlated with large and concentrated increases in a singular candidate’s polling (see de Blasio in 2013).

6. What kind of challenge will the GOP Present? For more on this, check out my prior post.

As a reminder, after the mayor election in 2025, we have midterms. Huzzah!

Share

Subscribe now