🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a significant forecast – not just who would win citywide, but precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in the city, has spent over a decade in left-leaning activism and emerged as something of a well-known figure this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and polling.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate was victorious while failed to predict the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to Bushwick to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Patterns and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

I had to do that since they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the system every few minutes! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of votes that came in after that and his lead dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world where election day turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, where the opponent would have basically doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But the winner added half a million votes to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

Where did the mayor-elect get additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the primary. Plus he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that progressives long aimed for: diverse, young, renters and residents squeezed by affordability

There were also some Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It is a genuine phenomenon, limited to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported Trump previously went for Zohran this year. But it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Turnout and Effects

A major development of the election was the sky-high participation. Who did that help?

Both sides. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I thought we might exceed two million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial opposition group, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that was enough to win.

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

Currently it appears he’s favored to get over 50%. He’s at 50.4% but remain around 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I hope he does because then none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His vote plummeted.

He didn’t win a single precinct in any borough. Including Tottenville in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really surprised me. Cuomo held very white areas, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these conservatives on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I think occurred significant tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to the former president endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your much mentioned left-wing base – was support for Mamdani overwhelming in those areas of the boroughs?

In my view there was a little dilution of the commie corridor in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners supported Cuomo. So there existed a little resistance. However overall, largely the commie corridor is another huge reason why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

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

There are neighborhoods with a lot of non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. However in the affluent districts such as the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential there. Similarly in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned Cuomo. Plus, there are newcomers from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly Cuomo. So I don’t know if existed crazy narrative-busters on this one, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York represents in politics? Will progressive base serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from the left come from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that we’ll see more of that – candidates will come from these areas to be elevated nationally.

However I think that every city in the US can have their own commie corridor. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in the nation – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities we face.