🔗 Share this article

Just 48 hours prior to the New York mayoral election, Michael Lange issued a bold electoral prediction – not just the winner overall, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst born and raised in New York City, devoted over a decade in left-leaning activism and has become a kind of local celebrity this year for his deep dives into city data and polling.

He released his highly detailed forecast map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani was victorious although missing the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. He possesses a talent for witty coinages. He highlighted, as an example, the divide between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to another area to a third locale, where he forecasted (correctly) that Mamdani would triumph by large leads, and the “capitalist corridor” on affluent parts of Manhattan. In those areas, “the Free Press and Wall Street Journal outrank the New York Times” in audience and the majority of electors favored the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Patterns and Surprises

How was your election night?

I had to do that since they were dropping around 200,000 ballots into the system every few minutes! I felt somewhat anxious at the beginning: Mamdani was ahead the early vote by 12 points, but came large groups of ballots added later and his lead dropped from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

Understand, there was a world in which election day went kind of poorly for him, in which the opponent was going to end up essentially doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But the winner gained half a million votes to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he won. He went out and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Coalition Building

Where did Mamdani gain those extra votes from?

He assembled the coalition that progressives long aimed for: it’s multiracial, it’s young, tenants and individuals squeezed by affordability. He improved significantly with minority communities, everyday New Yorkers, compared to the primary. Plus he boosted his base of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. Victory required without making those significant inroads.

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

There were also a number of Trump/Mamdani voters – is this significant?

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to Hispanic laborers, south Asians and Islamic voters. Voters in immigrant strongholds that went for the former president previously went for Zohran this year. However I wouldn’t say he was winning over Caucasian laborers and Trump loyalists.

Voter Participation and Impact

One of the big stories of the night was the record turnout. Who benefited?

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I thought we might exceed two million, but it reached 2.3M – which is a huge number of participants. There was a decent anti-Mamdani block, 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 50%. He’s at just over 50% but remain around 200K ballots uncounted at that time. Thus I don’t think certain, but I think probable, and I hope he does so then none can claim the Republican was a disruptor.

GOP Decline

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

He lost any district in any borough. Not even Tottenville in the borough, similar to an highly conservative area. That truly was unexpected. The independent held Caucasian districts, very wealthy areas and very religiously Jewish areas, and plus gained many Republicans on Staten Island with a high participation. I believe there was significant tactical voting by the Republicans. They were doing it prior to the former president endorsed for Cuomo, but that definitely helped. It might have changed the outcome if Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

What about your much mentioned “commie corridor” – did backing for the candidate dominant in those parts of the boroughs?

In my view existed 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 was some opposition. However overall, mostly the commie corridor is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he scored between high percentages in specific neighborhoods.

Community Support

In the lead-up to the election we reported on if the candidate was gaining ground with the community. Any indication that he did?

Exist areas with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – like Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he performed strongly. However in the wealthy Jewish communities like the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance was influential there. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas including Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored Cuomo. Plus, you have newcomers from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were strongly supportive. Therefore it’s unclear if there were crazy narrative-busters on this one, but he did hold more progressive Jewish neighborhoods and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York represents in politics? Will the commie corridor serve as a springboard for leftwing candidates?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that some of the biggest political leaders from the left hail from a handful of neighborhoods in the boroughs. I’m sure that there will be more of that – candidates will emerge from these neighborhoods to be promoted to higher office.

However I think that each urban center in America can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the epicenters of leftwing power in the nation – since youth reside there, tenancy is common and they are places where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.