🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the NYC mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange issued a significant forecast – not just who would win citywide, but block by block. Lange, an expert in elections who grew up in New York City, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become a kind of local celebrity this year for his thorough analyses into city data and voter surveys.

He published his highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate would win while failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, the Narrative War. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He pointed out, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from one neighborhood to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers surpass the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors favored the independent, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

I had to do that since they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the tally every few minutes! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: Mamdani led the initial ballots by 12 points, but there were two big batches of votes that came in later and his lead dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, it was possible where yesterday went somewhat badly for Mamdani, where Cuomo was going to end up basically increasing his support from the earlier contest. However Mamdani added 500,000 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 gain those extra votes from?

He built the coalition that the left long aimed for: diverse racially, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the primary. Plus he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

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

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

It’s definitely a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump previously backed Zohran now. But I wouldn’t say he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

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

Both sides. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I thought it could exceed two million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – that is a lot of darn voters. There was a decent opposition group, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to secure victory.

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

Right now you would say he’s likely to get over 50%. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still probably 200K ballots left to report at that time. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I hope he achieves it so then none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, was another surprise. His support completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump area. That truly surprised me. The independent held Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and then added many Republicans on Staten Island who had a high participation. I believe there was a lot of strategic balloting by GOP voters. This happened prior to the former president endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome if the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate overwhelming in those areas of the boroughs?

I think existed a little dilution of the progressive zone in some areas like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the property owners and homeowners supported Cuomo. Thus there existed a little resistance. However no, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

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

Exist areas with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like specific locales – where he performed strongly. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they all leaned Cuomo. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly Cuomo. So I don’t know if there were major surprises here, but Mamdani did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city represents in politics? Will the commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be more of that – candidates will emerge from these areas to be elevated nationally.

However I believe that every city in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of leftwing power in America – because they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the inequalities we face.