🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the New York race for mayor, Michael Lange issued a significant forecast – not just who would win citywide, and block by block. The analyst, a political analyst who grew up in New York City, has spent over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become something of a local celebrity this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He released his extremely precise prediction map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious while missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. Lange has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the “commie corridor”, running from one neighborhood to Bushwick to Astoria, where he forecasted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. There, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the New York Times” in readership and the majority of electors favored the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Trends and Surprises

What was your night?

It was necessary because they were dropping around 200,000 votes into the tally every few minutes! I felt somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were large groups of ballots that came in after that and the advantage went from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world in which yesterday turned out somewhat badly for him, where the opponent would have basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. But the winner added half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He went out and massively expanded his support from the primary.

Expanding Support

How did Mamdani gain additional support from?

He built the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, it’s renters and it’s people facing cost pressures. He gained significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He created the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse, youthful, renters and residents squeezed by affordability

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

It’s definitely a real thing, limited to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Muslims. Voters in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president previously went for the progressive now. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Impact

One of the big stories of the night was the record participation. Who did that help?

Both sides. Turnout was significantly higher than I had expected. I thought it could exceed 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. Existed a decent opposition group, energized, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

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

Currently it appears he’s favored to get over 50%. He has 50.4% but remain around 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 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 lost a single precinct in any area. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an highly conservative neighborhood. That really surprised me. The independent kept very white areas, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained many Republicans on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I think occurred a lot of strategic balloting by the Republicans. This happened before Trump endorsed for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if the winning alliance hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate overwhelming in those areas of the boroughs?

In my view there was some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. There, for example, the Greek landlords and residents supported Cuomo. Thus there existed some opposition. However overall, largely the leftist base is a key factor why Zohran prevailed – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the vote there was coverage on if the candidate was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the affluent districts like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel was influential in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned Cuomo. And also, you have newcomers from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly Cuomo. So I don’t know if existed crazy narrative-busters here, but he retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will progressive base serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest figures from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that we’ll see more of that – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that every city in America can have similar progressive hubs. Cities are the centers of leftwing power in the nation – because they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the disparities we face.