🔗 Share this article

Just two days prior to the NYC race for mayor, Michael Lange made a bold forecast – going beyond the winner citywide, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in New York City, devoted more than ten years in progressive politics and has become something of a local celebrity recently for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his highly detailed forecast map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although missing Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his Substack, the Narrative War. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He pointed out, as an example, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he predicted (accurately) that Mamdani would win by huge margins, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, certain media outlets and financial newspapers surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters favored Cuomo, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Patterns and Surprises

What was your election night?

It was necessary because they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the tally frequently! I was actually somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were large groups of ballots that came in later and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, there was a world in which election day turned out kind of poorly for him, where the opponent would have essentially increasing his support from the Democratic primary. However Mamdani added half a million votes to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and massively expanded his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani gain additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, it’s young, it’s renters and individuals facing cost pressures. He gained considerably with minority communities, working- and middle-class voters, 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 expanding his appeal.

He built the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse, young, renters and residents squeezed by affordability

Additionally, there were a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is that a big trend?

It is a real thing, limited to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump previously went for the progressive this year. However I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Impact

A major development of the election was the record participation. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Participation was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured it could go over two million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a lot of darn voters. Existed a substantial opposition group, who were motivated, but the Mamdani base was also motivated, and that sufficed to win.

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

Currently it appears he’s likely to get over 50%. He’s at just over 50% but remain around 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I think it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it so afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His vote plummeted.

He didn’t win a single precinct in any area. Including one neighborhood in the borough, which is like an highly conservative area. That truly surprised me. The independent kept very white areas, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and then added many Republicans on the island with a high participation. I think there was significant strategic balloting by GOP voters. This happened before the former president tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your often-discussed left-wing base – did backing for the candidate overwhelming in those parts of the boroughs?

I think existed a little dilution of the commie corridor in certain places like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. There, instance, the property owners and homeowners supported the independent. Thus there was a little resistance. However no, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani won – he was polling between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the vote we reported on whether Mamdani was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts such as the Upper East Side, his position on Israel was influential there. Likewise in the moderate communities including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in southern Brooklyn, who were pretty staunchly Cuomo. Therefore it’s unclear if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale by big margins.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what New York represents in politics? Will the commie corridor become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that key figures from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that there will be more of that – people will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

However I think that each urban center in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of progressive influence in the nation – because youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.