🔗 Share this article

Just two days before the NYC race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant forecast – not just who would win overall, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in the city, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as a kind of local celebrity this year for his thorough analyses into city data and polling.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate was victorious although failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He highlighted, as an example, the split between the “commie corridor”, running from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he forecasted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in readership and the majority of electors favored Cuomo, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Patterns and Surprises

What was your election night?

I had to do that because they were adding approximately 200K votes into the system every few minutes! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: Mamdani led the initial ballots by 12 points, but there were large groups of votes that came in later and the advantage went from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

You know, there was a world in which yesterday turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, where Cuomo would have essentially doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But Mamdani added half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the first round.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, tenants and it’s people facing cost pressures. He improved considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his base of liberal progressives, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

There were also a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, limited to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Voters in ethnic enclaves that went for the former president last year went for the progressive now. But it’s not that he was gaining white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

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

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than I had expected. I figured we might go over two million, but it reached 2.3 million – which is a lot of darn voters. Existed a decent anti-Mamdani block, energized, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that was enough to secure victory.

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

Currently it appears he’s likely to get over 50%. He has 50.4% but there’s still around 200K ballots uncounted at that time. So it’s not certain, but I think probable, and I wish he does because afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His vote plummeted.

He didn’t win a single precinct in any borough. Not even Tottenville in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump area. That truly surprised me. The independent kept Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained many conservatives on the island who had a high participation. I think there was a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it before Trump endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome unless the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your often-discussed left-wing base – was support for Mamdani dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

I think existed some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for the independent. Thus there was a little resistance. But overall, mostly the commie corridor is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the election we reported on whether the candidate was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he did?

There are neighborhoods 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 position on Israel was influential there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. Plus, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were pretty staunchly supportive. Therefore it’s unclear if existed crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale by big margins.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city represents in politics? Will progressive base serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that key political leaders from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I believe that we’ll see more of that – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

But I believe that each urban center in America could develop similar progressive hubs. Cities are the epicenters of progressive influence in the nation – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they are places where individuals struggle by the disparities exist.