🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours prior to the NYC mayoral election, Michael Lange made a bold electoral prediction – not just the winner citywide, and block by block. Lange, an expert in elections born and raised in New York City, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and has become a kind of well-known figure recently for his thorough analyses into city data and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – accurately predicting that Zohran Mamdani was victorious while missing Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. He possesses a talent for witty coinages. He highlighted, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he predicted (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, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the New York Times” in readership and most voters favored Cuomo, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your election night?

I had to do that because they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the system frequently! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but came large groups of ballots added after that and the advantage went from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world in which yesterday turned out kind of poorly for him, in which the opponent was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the earlier contest. However the winner added half a million votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He went out and greatly broadened his support from the primary.

Expanding Support

Where did the mayor-elect get those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: diverse racially, it’s young, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the earlier election. Additionally he boosted his base of liberal progressives, young leftists, and Muslims and south Asians. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He created the coalition that progressives always wanted to build: diverse, young, tenants and people squeezed by affordability

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

It is a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, Asian communities and Muslims. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported the former president previously backed the progressive now. However I wouldn’t say he was winning over white working-class voters and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Effects

A major development of the night was the sky-high participation. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. 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, energized, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Right now you would say he’s favored to surpass half. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still probably 200,000 votes uncounted at that time. Thus it’s not it’s definitive, but I think probable, and I hope he achieves it so then no one can say the Republican was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the conservative contender, is the other big story. His vote completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in the borough, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really surprised me. The independent kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and then added many Republicans on the island who had a high participation. I think occurred a lot of strategic balloting by the Republicans. They were doing it before Trump endorsed for Cuomo, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless Mamdani’s coalition hadn’t grown.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your often-discussed “commie corridor” – 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 Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, for example, the Greek landlords and homeowners all went for Cuomo. Thus there existed some opposition. But overall, mostly the commie corridor is another huge reason why Mamdani won – he was polling between 77% and 83% in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the vote there was coverage on whether the candidate was gaining ground with the community. Is there any suggestion that he succeeded?

There are neighborhoods with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as specific locales – where he did well. But in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas like Queens neighborhoods, or Bronx areas – they all leaned the independent. And also, there are Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the borough, they were pretty staunchly Cuomo. So I don’t know if existed major surprises on this one, but Mamdani retained more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

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

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key political leaders from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that we’ll see more of that – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

However I think that every city in the US can have their own commie corridor. Cities are the epicenters of progressive influence in America – since they’re young, people rent and they are places where people are crushed by the inequalities we face.