🔗 Share this article

Only 48 hours before the NYC race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange made a significant forecast – not just who would win overall, but block by block. Lange, an expert in elections born and raised in the city, has spent more than ten years in progressive politics and has become a kind of local celebrity this year for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He published his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate was victorious while failed to predict the independent candidate’s solid showing – on his Substack, his platform. He possesses a talent for clever terms. He highlighted, for instance, the divide between the “commie corridor”, running from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he forecasted (correctly) that Mamdani would triumph by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, certain media outlets and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in audience and most voters leaned toward Cuomo, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

It was necessary since they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the system frequently! I felt somewhat anxious at the beginning: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots that came in after that and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, it was possible in which election day turned out kind of poorly for Mamdani, in which the opponent would have essentially doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. However the winner gained half a million supporters to his primary coalition, and this was critical why he succeeded. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his core of liberal progressives, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without expanding his appeal.

He built the coalition that progressives long aimed for: multiracial, young, tenants and residents squeezed by affordability

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

It is a real thing, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president last year went for Zohran now. However it’s not that he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Impact

One of the big stories of the election was the sky-high participation. Who did that help?

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than I had expected. I figured it could go over 2 million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a lot of darn voters. There was a decent opposition group, who were motivated, but his supporters was equally driven, and that sufficed to win.

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

Right now it appears he’s favored to get over half. He has 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots left to report at that time. Thus it’s not certain, but I believe it’s likely, and I wish he does because afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

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

He didn’t win any district in any area. Not even Tottenville in the borough, similar to an 88% Trump area. That really surprised me. The independent held very white areas, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added many Republicans on Staten Island with a strong turnout. I believe there was a lot of tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it before Trump tweeted his support for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome unless Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for Mamdani dominant in those areas of the boroughs?

In my view there was a little dilution of the commie corridor in some areas like neighborhoods that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, instance, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for the independent. So there was some opposition. But overall, mostly the commie corridor is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

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

Exist areas with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – like specific locales – where he performed strongly. But in the affluent districts such as the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance was influential in those places. Similarly in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. And also, there are Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in the borough, they were strongly supportive. So it’s unclear if there were major surprises on this one, but Mamdani retained left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale by big margins.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York means politically? Will the progressive base become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s not accidental that key political leaders from the left hail from a few areas in the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be additional examples – 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 centers of leftwing power in America – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.