🔗 Share this article

Only two days before the NYC mayoral election, Michael Lange made a significant forecast – going beyond who would win citywide, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst who grew up in New York City, devoted more than ten years in left-leaning activism and emerged as something of a local celebrity recently for his thorough analyses into municipal statistics and voter surveys.

He published his extremely precise forecast map – accurately predicting that the progressive candidate was victorious while failed to predict Andrew Cuomo’s strong performance – on his newsletter, his platform. Lange has a flair for clever terms. He highlighted, for instance, the divide between the “commie corridor”, stretching from one neighborhood to another area to Astoria, where he forecasted (accurately) that the left-wing candidate would win by huge margins, and the conservative-leaning zone on Manhattan’s Upper East and Upper West Sides. In those areas, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the New York Times” in audience and most voters favored the independent, campaigning as a conservative-courting independent.

Election Night Patterns and Unexpected Results

How was your election night?

I had to do that because they were dropping approximately 200K votes into the system every few minutes! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate was ahead the initial ballots by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots added later and the advantage dropped from 12% to 8%. It was concerning.

You know, there was a world in which yesterday went somewhat badly for Mamdani, in which the opponent was going to end up basically doubling his votes from the earlier contest. But Mamdani gained half a million supporters to his initial base, and that’s a huge reason why he succeeded. He went out and massively expanded his support from the first round.

Expanding Support

How did Mamdani get those extra votes from?

He built the alliance that the left long aimed for: it’s multiracial, youthful, tenants and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He improved significantly with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the primary. Plus he further maximized his core of left-leaning activists, young leftists, and immigrant groups. Victory required without expanding his appeal.

He built the alliance that the left always wanted to build: multiracial, youthful, tenants and residents struggling with costs

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

It’s definitely a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, south Asians and Islamic voters. Electors in immigrant strongholds that supported Trump last year backed the progressive this year. However it’s not that he was gaining Caucasian laborers and Maga voters.

Turnout and Impact

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

Each candidate. Turnout was much greater than anticipated. I thought it could exceed two million, but it reached 2.3M – that is a huge number of participants. There was a substantial opposition group, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that sufficed to win.

You predicted he’d get over half the ballots. Is he likely for that?

Currently you would say he’s likely to surpass half. He’s at just over 50% but there’s still around 200,000 votes left to report as of Wednesday morning. Thus I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe it’s likely, and I hope he achieves it because then no one can say 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 one neighborhood in Staten Island, which is like an 88% Trump neighborhood. That really surprised me. Cuomo held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added many conservatives on the island who had a high participation. I think occurred significant tactical voting by GOP voters. This happened prior to the former president tweeted his support for Cuomo, but it assisted. It might have changed the outcome if the winning alliance failed to expand.

Progressive Strongholds

Regarding your much mentioned “commie corridor” – was support for the candidate dominant in those areas of the boroughs?

I think there was some weakening of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have older Caucasian residents. There, instance, the property owners and homeowners all went for Cuomo. So there was some opposition. But overall, largely the commie corridor is another huge reason why Mamdani prevailed – he was polling between high percentages in Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Bushwick.

Jewish Voters

In the lead-up to the vote we reported on whether the candidate was making inroads with Jewish New Yorkers. Is there any suggestion that he did?

There are neighborhoods with many non-religious and left-inclined voters – such as Park Slope and Morningside Heights – where he did well. However in the affluent districts like the Manhattan area, his Middle East stance was influential in those places. Similarly in the moderate communities like Queens neighborhoods, or Spuyten Duyvil and Riverdale – they favored the independent. Plus, there are newcomers from Eastern Europe in southern Brooklyn, they were pretty staunchly supportive. So it’s unclear if existed major surprises on this one, 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 New York means politically? Will commie corridor become a launch pad for progressive contenders?

Absolutely, it’s no coincidence that key figures from the left come from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I’m sure that we’ll see more of that – candidates will come from these areas to be elevated nationally.

But I believe that each urban center in the US could develop similar progressive hubs. Cities are the epicenters of progressive influence in the nation – since they’re young, people rent and they are places where individuals struggle by the inequalities we face.