🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours prior to the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – going beyond who would win citywide, and precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in the city, has spent more than ten years in progressive politics and has become something of a well-known figure this year for his thorough analyses into city data and voter surveys.

He published his highly detailed prediction map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although failed to predict the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. He has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he forecasted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the mainstream paper” in audience and most voters leaned toward Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Trends and Surprises

What was your night?

I had to do that since they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the tally every few minutes! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of ballots added later and the advantage went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, it was possible where election day went somewhat badly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo would have basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. However the winner gained 500,000 supporters to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He campaigned and massively expanded his base from the first round.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani gain additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He built the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, renters and residents struggling with costs

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

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported the former president previously backed Zohran now. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Turnout and Impact

One of the big stories of the election was the sky-high turnout. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought we might exceed two million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. There was a decent opposition group, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

You forecasted he’d exceed half the ballots. Is he on course for that?

Currently it appears he’s likely to surpass half. He has just over 50% but there’s still around 200K ballots uncounted at that time. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe probable, and I hope he does so then none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

The GOP candidate, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His support plummeted.

He didn’t win any district in any borough. Including Tottenville in the borough, which is like an highly conservative area. That truly was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained many Republicans on the island who had a strong turnout. I believe occurred significant tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it before Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

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

I think existed a little dilution of the commie corridor in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the Greek landlords and residents all went for Cuomo. Thus there existed some opposition. However no, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the election there was coverage on if Mamdani was gaining ground with the community. Is there any suggestion that he did?

Exist areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they favored the independent. And also, you have Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were strongly supportive. Therefore I don’t know if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but he did hold left-leaning areas and including sections of the Upper West Side by big margins.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city means politically? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key figures from progressives come from a few areas in the boroughs. I’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – people will come from these areas to be elevated nationally.

But I think that each urban center in America could develop their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in America – since they’re young, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.