🔗 Share this article

Only two days prior to the New York race for mayor, political analyst Michael Lange issued a significant forecast – going beyond who would win overall, and precinct by precinct. The analyst, a political analyst who grew up in New York City, has spent over a decade in progressive politics and emerged as a kind of well-known figure this year for his thorough analyses into city data and polling.

He published his extremely precise prediction map – which correctly forecast that Zohran Mamdani would win while failed to predict the independent candidate’s strong performance – on his Substack, his platform. Lange possesses a talent for clever terms. He pointed out, for instance, the split between the progressive stronghold, running from Park Slope to Bushwick to Astoria, where he predicted (correctly) that Mamdani would win by large leads, and the conservative-leaning zone on affluent parts of Manhattan. There, “the Free Press and financial newspapers outrank the mainstream paper” in readership and the majority of electors favored the independent, who ran as a conservative-courting independent.

Voting Day Trends and Unexpected Results

What was your night?

I had to do that since they were adding around 200,000 ballots into the tally frequently! I felt a little nervous at the beginning: The candidate led the early vote by a dozen percentage points, but there were two big batches of ballots added after that and his lead went from 12% to 8%. I was worried.

Understand, it was possible where election day turned out somewhat badly for Mamdani, where Cuomo was going to end up basically increasing his support 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 massively expanded his base from the first round.

Expanding Support

Where did Mamdani gain additional support from?

He assembled the alliance that the left always wanted to build: it’s multiracial, youthful, it’s renters and it’s people squeezed by affordability. He gained considerably with Black and Hispanic voters, working- and middle-class voters, relative to the earlier election. Plus he boosted his core of liberal progressives, youthful radicals, and immigrant groups. He couldn’t have won without making those significant inroads.

He created the alliance that the left always wanted to build: diverse, youthful, renters and residents struggling with costs

Additionally, there were a number of supporters of both candidates – is this significant?

It is a genuine phenomenon, confined to working-class Latinos, Asian communities and Islamic voters. Voters in ethnic enclaves that went for the former president previously backed Zohran this year. However it’s not that he was winning over white working-class voters and Maga voters.

Voter Participation and Impact

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

Each candidate. Turnout was significantly higher than anticipated. I figured we might exceed 2 million, but it’s closer to 2.3 million – which is a lot of darn voters. There was a substantial opposition group, energized, but his supporters was equally driven, and that was enough to win.

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

Right now it appears he’s likely to get over half. He has 50.4% but remain probably 200K ballots left to report as of Wednesday morning. So I don’t think it’s definitive, but I believe it’s likely, and I wish he achieves it so afterwards none can claim Sliwa was a spoiler.

Republican Collapse

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

He didn’t win a single precinct in any borough. Not even one neighborhood in Staten Island, similar to an highly conservative neighborhood. That really was unexpected. Cuomo held Caucasian districts, affluent zones and very religiously Jewish areas, and then added all of these conservatives on the island who had a high participation. I think occurred significant strategic balloting by the Republicans. This happened prior to Trump endorsed for the candidate, but that definitely helped. It could have even turned the tide if Mamdani’s coalition failed to expand.

The “Commie Corridor”

Regarding your often-discussed “commie corridor” – did backing for Mamdani overwhelming in those areas of Brooklyn and Queens?

I think existed a little dilution of the progressive zone in certain places like Astoria or Greenpoint that have more older white ethnic folks. There, instance, the Greek landlords and residents supported Cuomo. Thus there was some opposition. But overall, largely the leftist base is another huge reason why Mamdani won – he scored between 77% and 83% in specific neighborhoods.

Jewish Voters

Prior to the election there was coverage on if the candidate was making inroads with the community. Any indication that he succeeded?

Exist areas with many secular and more progressive-leaning Jews – such as specific locales – where he did well. But in the affluent districts like the Upper East Side, his Middle East stance definitely mattered in those places. Likewise in the more middle-class Jewish areas 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 strongly supportive. So I don’t know if there were major surprises on this one, but he did hold left-leaning areas and even parts of the another locale with large leads.

Long-Term Significance

Did Mamdani redefine what New York represents in politics? Will commie corridor become a launch pad for leftwing candidates?

Yes, it’s not accidental that some of the biggest figures from progressives hail from a handful of neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I believe that we’ll see more of that – candidates will come from these neighborhoods to be elevated nationally.

However I think that each urban center in the US can have similar progressive hubs. Urban places are the centers of leftwing power in the nation – since they’re young, tenancy is common and they represent locales where people are crushed by the disparities we face.