🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours prior to the NYC race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a bold electoral prediction – going beyond the winner overall, and precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in New York City, devoted over a decade in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure recently for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani would win although missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. Lange possesses a talent for witty coinages. He highlighted, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in audience and most voters favored the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Patterns and Unexpected Results

How was your election night?

It was necessary because they were adding approximately 200K votes into the tally every few minutes! I felt a little nervous initially: Mamdani was ahead the initial ballots by 12 points, but came two big batches of ballots added after that and his lead went from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, 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 the winner gained 500,000 supporters to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

How did the mayor-elect get those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He improved considerably with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Plus he further maximized his base of liberal progressives, young leftists, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

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

Additionally, there were some supporters of both candidates – is that a big trend?

It’s definitely a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president previously went for the progressive now. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Turnout and Effects

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

Both sides. Participation was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured we might exceed 2 million, but it reached 2.3 million – which is a huge number of participants. Existed a substantial opposition group, energized, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that was enough to win.

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

Right now you would say he’s favored to get over half. He has just over 50% but remain probably 200K ballots uncounted as of Wednesday morning. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I hope he achieves it because afterwards no one can say Sliwa was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, is the other big story. His support completely collapsed.

He didn’t win any district in any borough. Including Tottenville in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really surprised me. Cuomo held very white areas, affluent zones and devout communities, and plus gained all of these Republicans on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I believe there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened before the former president endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

In my view there was some weakening of the commie corridor in some areas like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the Greek landlords and residents supported Cuomo. So there was some opposition. However overall, mostly the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the vote we reported on whether the candidate was gaining ground with the community. Any indication that he succeeded?

There are areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the wealthy Jewish communities such as the Upper East Side, his position on Israel definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the moderate communities like Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they favored Cuomo. And also, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, who were pretty staunchly supportive. Therefore I don’t know if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York represents in politics? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key figures from the left hail from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that there will be additional examples – candidates will come from these areas to be elevated nationally.

But I think that every city in America can have similar progressive hubs. Cities are the epicenters of progressive influence in the nation – since they’re young, people rent and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.