🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours prior to the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – not just the winner overall, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections born and raised in the city, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become a kind of local celebrity this year for his deep dives into city data and polling.

He published his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. He has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he forecasted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the mainstream paper” in audience and the majority of electors leaned toward Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the system frequently! I was actually somewhat anxious initially: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but there were two big batches of votes that came in after that and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

You know, it was possible in which election day turned out kind of poorly for him, where the opponent would have basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. But the winner gained 500,000 votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the primary. Plus he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He built the alliance that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, young, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

There were also some supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It is a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for the former president last year went for the progressive now. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the election was the record participation. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured we might exceed two million, but it reached 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

You predicted he’d exceed 50% of the vote. Is he likely for that?

Currently it appears he’s favored to surpass half. He’s at 50.4% but there’s still around 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe probable, and I hope he does because afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His vote completely collapsed.

He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump neighborhood. That truly was unexpected. Cuomo held very white areas, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these Republicans on the island who had a high participation. I think there was a lot of strategic balloting by the Republicans. This happened prior to Trump tweeted his support for Cuomo, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view there was some weakening of the commie corridor in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. There, instance, the property owners and homeowners supported the independent. So there was a little resistance. However no, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the vote we reported on whether Mamdani was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the affluent districts such as the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they favored Cuomo. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore I don’t know if existed major surprises here, but he did hold left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale by big margins.

Political Impact

Did Mamdani redefine what the city means politically? Will progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key political leaders from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that we’ll see more of that – people will come from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that each urban center in America can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of leftwing power in America – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.