🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours prior to the New York mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant forecast – going beyond the winner citywide, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst who grew up in the city, has spent more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as a kind of local celebrity this year for his deep dives into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He released his highly detailed prediction map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. He has a flair for clever terms. He pointed out, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to another area to Astoria, where he forecasted (correctly) that the left-wing candidate would triumph by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal outrank the mainstream paper” in readership and most voters leaned toward the independent, who ran as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Trends and Unexpected Results

What 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 at the beginning: Mamdani led the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were large groups of votes added after that and his lead went from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

You know, there was a world where election day went kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which Cuomo would have essentially doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But the winner added 500,000 supporters to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He went out and greatly broadened his base from the primary.

Coalition Building

How did the mayor-elect gain additional support from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, everyday New Yorkers, relative to the earlier election. Additionally he further maximized his core of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

He created the alliance that the left long aimed for: diverse, youthful, tenants and people struggling with costs

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

It is a real thing, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Muslims. Electors in immigrant strongholds that went for Trump last year went for Zohran this year. But I wouldn’t say he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the election was the record participation. Who benefited?

Both sides. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I thought it could exceed two million, but it reached 2.3 million – that is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial opposition group, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to win.

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

Currently it appears he’s favored to surpass half. He has just over 50% but remain around 200,000 votes uncounted as of Wednesday morning. So it’s not certain, but I believe it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it because afterwards no one can say 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 area. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, which is like an highly conservative neighborhood. That truly was unexpected. Cuomo kept very white areas, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these conservatives on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I think there was a lot of tactical voting by GOP voters. They were doing it prior to Trump tweeted his support for Cuomo, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

What about your often-discussed left-wing base – did backing for Mamdani dominant in those areas of the boroughs?

I think there was some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and residents supported the independent. So there existed a little resistance. But overall, largely the commie corridor is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the election we reported on whether the candidate was gaining ground with the community. Is there any suggestion that he did?

There are neighborhoods with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. However in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance was influential in those places. 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, who were strongly supportive. Therefore it’s unclear if existed major surprises on this one, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and including sections of the another locale by big margins.

Political Impact

Has Mamdani rewritten what the city represents in politics? Will commie corridor serve as a springboard for progressive contenders?

Yes, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest political leaders from progressives hail from a few areas in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that we’ll see more of that – candidates will emerge from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

However I believe that each urban center in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in the nation – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.