🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours prior to the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange made a significant electoral prediction – not just the winner overall, and block by block. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in New York City, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as a kind of local celebrity recently for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate was victorious although missing the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He highlighted, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from one neighborhood to Bushwick to a third locale, where he forecasted (accurately) that Mamdani would triumph by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and financial newspapers surpass the New York Times” in audience and most voters leaned toward the independent, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Trends and Surprises

What was your night?

It was necessary since they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the system frequently! I was actually a little nervous initially: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of ballots that came in later and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world where election day turned out somewhat badly for him, in which Cuomo was going to end up basically increasing his support from the Democratic primary. However Mamdani added half a million supporters to his initial base, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Coalition Building

How did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that the left long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his core of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse, young, renters and people struggling with costs

Additionally, there were some supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It’s definitely a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump previously went for the progressive this year. However it’s not that he was gaining white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the night was the record turnout. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I figured we might go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but the Mamdani base was equally driven, and that was enough to secure victory.

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

Currently you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He has 50.4% but remain probably 200,000 votes uncounted at that time. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe probable, and I wish he does so then none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His support completely collapsed.

He didn’t win any district in any borough. Not even Tottenville in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump area. That really surprised me. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained many Republicans on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I believe there was a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened prior to Trump endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your often-discussed “commie corridor” – was support for the candidate dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

I think there was a little dilution of the progressive zone in some areas like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and residents supported Cuomo. So there was a little resistance. But overall, largely the commie corridor is another huge reason why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

Prior to the election there was coverage on if the candidate was making inroads with the community. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are areas with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. However in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance was influential in those places. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly supportive. Therefore I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters here, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York means politically? Will the commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that key figures from the left hail from a few areas in the boroughs. I’m sure that we’ll see additional examples – candidates will emerge from these areas to be promoted to higher office.

But I believe that every city in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Cities are the centers of progressive influence in the nation – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they are places where people are crushed by the disparities we face.