🔗 Share this article

Just two days before the NYC mayoral election, political analyst Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – not just who would win citywide, and precinct by precinct. Lange, a political analyst born and raised in the city, devoted over a decade in progressive politics and has become a kind of well-known figure recently for his deep dives into city data and voter surveys.

He released his extremely precise prediction map – which correctly forecast that the progressive candidate would win while failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. He has a flair for witty coinages. He pointed out, for instance, the divide between the progressive stronghold, stretching from one neighborhood to Bushwick to a third locale, where he predicted (accurately) that Mamdani would win by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, certain media outlets and Wall Street Journal outrank the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors favored Cuomo, campaigning as a moderate alternative.

Election Night Patterns and Surprises

How was your night?

I had to do that because they were dropping approximately 200K ballots into the tally frequently! I was actually a little nervous at the beginning: Mamdani led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but came two big batches of ballots added later and the advantage dropped from 12 to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world where yesterday turned out kind of poorly for him, in which Cuomo was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the Democratic primary. However Mamdani gained 500,000 votes to his primary coalition, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He went out and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

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

He assembled the coalition that the left always wanted to build: diverse racially, youthful, it’s renters and individuals squeezed by affordability. He gained significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, compared to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and Muslims and south Asians. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He built the alliance that the left long aimed for: multiracial, youthful, renters and people struggling with costs

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

It is a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Muslims. Electors in ethnic enclaves that supported Trump previously went for Zohran now. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Turnout and Effects

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

Both sides. Participation was much greater than anticipated. I thought we might go over 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, who were motivated, but his supporters was also motivated, and that sufficed to secure victory.

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

Currently it appears he’s favored to get over 50%. He’s at 50.4% but there’s still around 200,000 votes left to report at that time. So it’s not it’s definitive, but I believe probable, and I hope he does because afterwards none can claim the Republican was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, was another surprise. His support completely collapsed.

He lost a single precinct in any area. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an 88% Trump area. That really surprised me. The independent kept Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and devout communities, and plus gained all of these conservatives on Staten Island who had a high participation. I believe there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. This happened before the former president endorsed for the candidate, but it assisted. It could have even turned the tide unless the winning alliance failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your much mentioned left-wing base – was support for Mamdani dominant in those areas of the boroughs?

I think there was some weakening of the commie corridor in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. In Astoria, for example, the property owners and residents supported the independent. So there was some opposition. But overall, mostly the leftist base is a key factor why Mamdani prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the vote there was coverage on if the candidate was making inroads with the community. Any indication that he did?

Exist neighborhoods with a lot of secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his position on Israel definitely mattered in those places. Similarly in the moderate communities like Forest Hills, Rego Park, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they all leaned Cuomo. And also, there are newcomers from the former Soviet Union in the borough, who were pretty staunchly Cuomo. So it’s unclear if existed major surprises here, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the Upper West Side with large leads.

Political Impact

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

Absolutely, it’s not accidental that key figures from progressives come from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I believe that we’ll see additional examples – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

But I think that every city in the US could develop their own commie corridor. Urban places are the epicenters of progressive influence in the nation – because they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.