🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the New York race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – going beyond the winner citywide, but precinct by precinct. The analyst, an expert in elections born and raised in the city, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of local celebrity this year for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious while failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s solid showing – on his newsletter, the Narrative War. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He highlighted, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, stretching from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (correctly) that Mamdani would win by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers surpass the New York Times” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Patterns and Unexpected Results

How was your election night?

I had to do that because they were adding approximately 200K ballots into the system every few minutes! I was actually a little nervous initially: Mamdani led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were large groups of ballots that came in after that and his lead dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world in which election day went somewhat badly for Mamdani, in which the opponent was going to end up basically increasing his support from the earlier contest. But the winner added 500,000 votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He campaigned and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Expanding Support

How did Mamdani get additional support from?

He built the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the primary. Plus he further maximized his base of left-leaning activists, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

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

There were also some supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It is a real thing, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump last year backed the progressive this year. But it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Turnout and Effects

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

Each candidate. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I figured it could go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a lot of darn voters. Existed a substantial anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but his supporters was equally driven, and that sufficed to secure victory.

You predicted he’d exceed half the ballots. Is he on course for that?

Currently you would say he’s likely to get over 50%. He’s at 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots uncounted at that time. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I wish he achieves it so afterwards none can claim the Republican was a spoiler.

GOP Decline

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

He lost a single precinct in any area. Including one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump area. That truly surprised me. The independent held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and devout communities, and then added many Republicans on Staten Island who had a strong turnout. I think there was a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it prior to Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your much mentioned left-wing base – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

In my view there was some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have more older white ethnic folks. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and residents all went for Cuomo. So there was a little resistance. However no, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Community Support

Prior to the election we reported on whether the candidate was gaining ground with Jewish New Yorkers. Any indication that he did?

There are neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, his position on Israel definitely mattered there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were strongly supportive. So it’s unclear if existed crazy narrative-busters on this one, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city represents in politics? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest political leaders from progressives hail from a few areas in the boroughs. I believe that there will be more of that – people will emerge from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

But I think that every city in America could develop similar progressive hubs. Cities are the centers of leftwing power in America – because youth reside there, people rent and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the inequalities exist.