Have voter attitudes or polling in Elmhurst and Jackson Heights shifted since Mamdani introduced his legislative agenda?

1. How polling looked before Mamdani’s legislative agenda and late campaign surge

Quinnipiac’s late-October poll had Mamdani at 43% to Andrew Cuomo’s 33% (Curtis Sliwa 14%), a roughly 10-point lead that left room for movement as the race closed; that poll also shows Mamdani performing particularly strongly with Asian voters in the likely-voter sample ^[4]. The Times’ poll aggregates similarly showed Mamdani ahead in many pre-election snapshots ^[7]. Those citywide numbers set the baseline that Jackson Heights and Elmhurst reporting later reflected: places where his standing was growing rather than collapsing ^{[4] [7]}.

2. Local turnout and vote swings in Jackson Heights — decisive and measurable

Reporting from NY1 and regional outlets documents a clear shift in Jackson Heights: Mamdani won the neighborhood by about 28 points and local South Asian voters told journalists affordability and pocketbook issues drove their choices, not single-issue loyalties ^{[1] [8]}. The victory margin in Jackson Heights is reported directly in local coverage and was cited as one of several Queens neighborhoods where he “dominated” on election night ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Elmhurst: from predicted gains to concrete wins

Multiple Queens-focused previews and post-election maps forecast and then recorded Mamdani’s strength in Elmhurst. Predictive neighborhood-by-neighborhood analysis expected Mamdani to expand leads in Elmhurst and Flushing, and post-election results and local coverage list Elmhurst among the areas he “dominated” or flipped in his winning coalition ^{[9] [3]}. Voter interviews in Elmhurst cited practical transit and affordability concerns that Mamdani emphasized, suggesting attitude shifts toward his platform on everyday issues ^[8].

4. Demographic dynamics that explain the shifts

Citywide synthesis of returns and exit analyses show Mamdani built a multiracial coalition: he improved on performance among Black and Hispanic voters compared with the primary, ran well in both low- and high-income census tracts, and assembled support across Brownstone Brooklyn and immigrant Queens neighborhoods ^{[10] [6]}. Local reporting in Jackson Heights underscores the role of South Asian and Muslim communities who treated Mamdani’s candidacy as historic and responsive to affordability — a pattern that helps explain turnout and attitude shifts ^{[11] [1]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints and countervailing signals

Not all reporting portrays uniform enthusiasm: Mother Jones’ on-the-ground interviews captured voters who supported other candidates in the past (including Trump or Cuomo) or who voted for Mamdani reluctantly because of frustration with incumbency, signaling that shifts were not purely partisan realignments but also pragmatic reactions to local problems ^[8]. Exit maps and analysis also show Cuomo still carried higher shares in neighborhoods with larger Jewish electorates and among the very highest and lowest income brackets — indicating local resistance pockets even as Elmhurst and Jackson Heights tilted toward Mamdani ^[6].

6. What the sources do and do not say about cause and timing

Available reporting links Mamdani’s platform — notably affordability and local service issues — to gains in Elmhurst and Jackson Heights, and documents high turnout as part of his success ^{[8] [2]}. Sources do not provide a detailed time series of polling inside those neighborhoods before and after a specific legislative agenda announcement, so we cannot definitively attribute the shifts to the timing of a single legislative move; they instead describe campaign messaging, late polls, and neighborhood-level vote totals and interviews that together show attitude change and mobilization (not found in current reporting).

7. Bottom line for readers

Neighborhood-level coverage and exit analysis consistently show a measurable shift toward Mamdani in Jackson Heights (a 28‑point win) and strong performance in Elmhurst, tied to high turnout and appeals on affordability and everyday services ^{[1] [3] [2]}. At the same time, on-the-ground interviews and precinct maps show complexity — some voters switched for pragmatic reasons and some communities remained aligned with Cuomo — so the shift is real but not uniform across all groups ^{[8] [6]}.